User talk:Necrothesp
Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
- An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Technical news
- The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
- Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
- The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
- Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
- Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Nomination of Kegley station (Illinois) for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kegley station (Illinois) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French emigrants to Wales
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Category:French emigrants to Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2022
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
- An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
- The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
- The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
- The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
- Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chinese emigrants to South Africa
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Chinese emigrants to South Africa indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Lady Gabriella Kingston deletion discussion
[edit]Hi, @necrothesp, I hope you don't mind me asking this but I'm always keen to learn. You argued for a 'keep' on the Lady Gabriella Kingston deletion discussion. I'd be interested in your thinking. I've looked down your very long and useful list of what you consider establishes notability. You don't mention people with an aristocratic title per se. I was the nominator of the deletion discussion on the basis that there is nothing notable at all about the subject re: WP:GNG. All such material is about trivial matters which in no sense point to notability of itself. Is it your view that any coverage at all of a subject in an acceptable source, however trivial, confers WP notability? This seems to be the principle which underpins your view but i might be wrong. It'd be useful to know for future edits. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Like all members of the royal family, she is well-known enough and covered enough in the media to be notable. Not so much now, it is true, but when she was young she and her siblings and cousins received considerable coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. The nub of my question is whether any old coverage in a credible publication is enough to make someone notable. You say it is. I don't think it is; the coverage should be of something notable, I think. Otherwise, people are notably simply because they're related to someone else who is. Might be a thought to update your list? Thanks, though. Very interesting to hear your view and I'll certainly take it into account in future. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think members of the British royal family really fall within the "people related to someone else" category. They're notable because they're members of one of the most notable and high-profile families in the world and so people are interested in them and they're written about. That's different from being notable because they're just the child/sibling/parent etc of someone else notable; I agree that doesn't provide notability. I have no idea who the prime minister's relations are and wouldn't consider them to be notable just because they're related to the PM, but I certainly know who Lady Gabriella Windsor (as she was) is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Necrothesp The consensus, your view, was certainly against mine here and that's what counts. Thanks so much for taking the time to chat. All useful learning experiences for me! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think members of the British royal family really fall within the "people related to someone else" category. They're notable because they're members of one of the most notable and high-profile families in the world and so people are interested in them and they're written about. That's different from being notable because they're just the child/sibling/parent etc of someone else notable; I agree that doesn't provide notability. I have no idea who the prime minister's relations are and wouldn't consider them to be notable just because they're related to the PM, but I certainly know who Lady Gabriella Windsor (as she was) is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. The nub of my question is whether any old coverage in a credible publication is enough to make someone notable. You say it is. I don't think it is; the coverage should be of something notable, I think. Otherwise, people are notably simply because they're related to someone else who is. Might be a thought to update your list? Thanks, though. Very interesting to hear your view and I'll certainly take it into account in future. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
- Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
- Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.
Technical news
- The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
- Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
- A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
- The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.
Miscellaneous
- An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
- You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
- An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
- Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Hi! This Barnstar is for you! This is for fighting for the Apostolic Catholic Church article during its 2nd and 3rd nomination for deletion. I promise you, that those efforts will not be in vain. Ploreky (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
Barnstar for you.
[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Hi there. Although we don't always see eye to eye on things, just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate all the effort you put into the project. You are a gem! Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
Comment
[edit]Hi-I was trying to make it easier or the readers when I added United Kingdom to the paces in the Batch article. There is also the possibility that are other places named Batch in other countries. Thank You-RFD (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- It already says England on all the entries, and as all are in the UK it's an unnecessary header. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Interview (2000 film ) has already nominate the deletion.
[edit]Can you help me the page? Fortunewriter (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
- An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
- AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
- You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
- Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like
{{rangeblock|create=yes}}or{{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
"Deputy sheriff" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deputy sheriff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Deputy sheriff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
- The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
- An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
- A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
- The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
- A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
- Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add
/64to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Filling station
[edit]I was a bit surprised when that RM was closed as moved especially when 1 !vote (the 1st) only supported the 3rd move, 1 (the 7th) appeared to only support the 3rd move and 1 (the 6th was less bothered where it was moved) and the reason being the Ngram which must be faulty as as noted I'd never heard "Gas station" except perhaps on Wikipedia and while we may give more weight to a source presented than the word of an editor it seems ridiculous not to take the word of people from England that "Gas station" isn't used here, as you put it "an entirely ludicrous claim added that "gas station" is more common even in British English" sums it up well. Lucky it was reconsidered. I think while "Filling station" is accurate we would use "Petrol station" if it was a British topic per WP:COMMONNAME even though they also provide diesel and other fuels but for an international encyclopedia the accurate but less common "Fuel station" makes sense. This is quite similar to Talk:Controlled-access highway#Requested move 21 January 2021 last year though for some reason I confused "Controlled-access highway" and "Dual carriageway" as I though the article was about dual carriageways! Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Necrothesp!
[edit]
Necrothesp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)"Vinkov" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vinkov and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Vinkov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.
Arbitration
- Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
- The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
- Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine move, asking for consensus--is it there, and if it is, what is it?
[edit]Hello Mr @Necrothesp! As you may be aware, there has recently been a lengthy conversation on the talk page for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article (see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested move 31 December 2022) and the seventh day of the discussion surrounding this move is slowly approaching. As a non-involved & active admin, do you think that there is sufficient consensus to close the move discussion? I come with this request assuming that there is enough consensus regarding the move to use XTheBedrockX's solution, even among those who oppose the move—but I highly suggest you, Sir, take your time and see if there is even a consensus. Thanks, Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Houghton Hall
[edit]Could you please revert you're move of Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, while the RM was closed as no consensus (which probably should have been no consensus to deviate from the standard form) there was a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators and the closer of the original RM User:Paine Ellsworth moved it back following my request at User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Houghton Hall. While the RFC wasn't formerly closed its quite clear from the discussion that there was consensus against using the shorter form. While I generally prefer using shorter forms for qualifiers I think the consensus was quite clear that the problems outweighed the benefits, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Necrothesp, you must really be invested deeply in this! Can't imagine how you could revert my page move without first discussing it with me, or at least doing it in a way that would leave me a notification. So where are you on the objective/subjective opinion scale as regards this issue? Consensus at the RfC does seem to be quite clear, my friend. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I'm not really bothered, although I obviously do support simple "Yorkshire". However, the decision at RM was to move back to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, and as I'm sure you're aware it is you who should have discussed it before moving it, whether you were the closer or not, so please, less of the criticism for reverting an undiscussed move. A little high-handed, don't you think? Had there been no RM then that would have been different, but there was, it was closed (by you) as no consensus, and, as has been pointed out, the RfC (which didn't have a great number of contributors in any case) has never been closed. If the RfC gets more attention and is formally closed then that's a different matter, but for now the RM must clearly stand. An unpublicised and undiscussed request on a talkpage really should not be allowed to overrule that or we make a mockery of Wikipedia's procedures. I don't like bureaucracy much, but really? A "secret" consensus of two, overruling those who supported the move back on the article's own talkpage, is really not on, and as experienced editors you should really both know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting spin on it. You answered my question and then some. Well aware of the RM's decision, no need for the reminder since it was my decision. I had no obligation to discuss it further because the RfC's decision is clear, as I said, so your choice of "high-handed" should not be projected back onto me. As you should know (as an experienced editor), an RfC does not require formal closure if the consensus is clear, and it is the consensus of the RfC that takes precedence over the lack of consensus in the RM. So the only question that remains is your accusation that the RfC was unpubicized, which the first section of it appears to deny. It was a publicized RfC that received sufficient attention to achieve consensus. By removing the decision of the RfC you are going against the present consensus, so please return the page to the title that is presently supported by consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus of an RfC is only clear if it is well-attended. This was not (which is presumably why it has never been closed). And I didn't say it was unpublicised, as you will see if you reread what I actually wrote. As to "high-handed", I was referring to your claims that I should have discussed the move when you did not. The course of action is clear. Open another RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- You appear then to agree to move the page back to the title that is presently supported by consensus in the RfC, and then open an RM to propose the move to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire. Is that correct? I will be glad to leave an opinion there, since I have learned much about it from the previous RM and the RfC. If the new RM results in no consensus, then the closer can determine whether or not the RfC consensus prevails. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I'm happy to leave the article at the title that was agreed, since it was moved yet again without discussion. But it's obviously your prerogative to open a new RM and I will naturally abide by its decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Still unclear, since the only title that has achieved any present agreement is Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire, which found consensus in the RfC. So it seems the correct path would be to hold the article at that agreed upon title, open an RM to rename to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, which I will be glad to do, and all of us abide by its decision. Is this suitable? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, as the article was created at Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, moved away from this title, and returned to this title after RM. That is the current agreed-upon title. An unclosed and rather poorly attended RfC is not relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, so the only lack of clarity here is 1) you think an RfC attended by nine editors with an opinion does not have enough consensus to override an RM that also was attended by nine editors with an opinion and which resulted in no consensus, and 2) you think an RfC that has achieved consensus requires formal closure in direct opposition to WP:CR's Many discussions do not need formal closure (emphasis not mine) because consensus is clear. Perhaps this is a job for an administrative notice board – editor Crouch, Swale, what do you think? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I really fail to see why you're so upset about a reversion to a move that you initially made following an RM closure! Very odd indeed. No need whatsoever for your tone here. Just open an RM. Conversation closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I hardly think it's possible that you "fail to see" anything, because you've been around long enough to be able to understand even more than I do. And you've been here long enough to understand Wikipedia's definition of consensus, so I get the idea that, while this as yet unconstructive discussion may have something to do with not being able to have it face-to-face and see body language, facial expressions and so on, it seems you're not revealing something about this. We have an RM that resulted in no consensus either to keep the long title or to move to the short name. In that case the decision meant to revert back to the title that still enjoyed long-term usage. And we have an RfC attended by nine contributing editors that resulted in a change of consensus. So I moved the article back to the long name. Against that consensus you chose to revert my page move. Why would I be upset? It's not like you're the first ever to revert any of my edits. No. You reverted the page move because you don't see the authority that I saw in the RfC's consensus. Therein lies the problem. So maybe we need more eyes on it, that's all I'm saying. And just fyi for the record, in all the time I've been on Wikipedia I have never taken another registered editor to any notice board. Not my style. So, Necrothesp. what is it exactly that I'm missing? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can assure you that you are missing absolutely nothing. You moved an article against an RM closure (whether it was yours or not is irrelevant). I moved it back and suggested you open another RM. That's it. Any additional complications have been of your making and only yours. I really have no wish to get into any sort of conflict over this, especially not with an experienced editor with whom I have no issues. Please just open your RM and see where it leads and stop suggesting this is anything more than a pointless dispute over nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Now I think I understand. I moved the article against the RM closure because it had no consensus to a title that does have consensus. You moved it back against the new consensus, and now you expect me to open another RM. That's it. There are no additional complications. You do appear to want a conflict though, but not with me; you are conflicting with policy, and you want to see if you are correct and the policy needs to be tweaked a bit. Yes, this dispute is so pointless, which is why it seems so pointy, and all over "nothing". Okay, I'll bite, and don't expect a non-neutral opening statement from me that puts you in a bad light. Like ya too much for that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- (11:07 User:Paine Ellsworth reply) The RM had 4 editors (including the nom) support using just "Yorkshire" and 5 supporting using "East Riding of Yorkshire" which there was no consensus found which probably should have meant it should have stayed at "East Riding of Yorkshire" per WP:UKPLACE and WP:UKCOUNTIES and those wanting to deviate start a RFC but at the RFC there looked around 8 editors supporting keeping the standard "East Riding of Yorkshire" due to confusion/complication with not using historic counties while only 1 (you) supporting using "Yorkshire" due to being more concise. While discussions aren't votes it seems quite clear on the discussion there was a clear consensus against using just "Yorkshire". So while I wasn't particularly happy that the previous close took the view of no consensus on a local level rather than a lack of consensus to override the general conventions given the RFC even the closer has agreed to modify the close. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Now I think I understand. I moved the article against the RM closure because it had no consensus to a title that does have consensus. You moved it back against the new consensus, and now you expect me to open another RM. That's it. There are no additional complications. You do appear to want a conflict though, but not with me; you are conflicting with policy, and you want to see if you are correct and the policy needs to be tweaked a bit. Yes, this dispute is so pointless, which is why it seems so pointy, and all over "nothing". Okay, I'll bite, and don't expect a non-neutral opening statement from me that puts you in a bad light. Like ya too much for that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can assure you that you are missing absolutely nothing. You moved an article against an RM closure (whether it was yours or not is irrelevant). I moved it back and suggested you open another RM. That's it. Any additional complications have been of your making and only yours. I really have no wish to get into any sort of conflict over this, especially not with an experienced editor with whom I have no issues. Please just open your RM and see where it leads and stop suggesting this is anything more than a pointless dispute over nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I hardly think it's possible that you "fail to see" anything, because you've been around long enough to be able to understand even more than I do. And you've been here long enough to understand Wikipedia's definition of consensus, so I get the idea that, while this as yet unconstructive discussion may have something to do with not being able to have it face-to-face and see body language, facial expressions and so on, it seems you're not revealing something about this. We have an RM that resulted in no consensus either to keep the long title or to move to the short name. In that case the decision meant to revert back to the title that still enjoyed long-term usage. And we have an RfC attended by nine contributing editors that resulted in a change of consensus. So I moved the article back to the long name. Against that consensus you chose to revert my page move. Why would I be upset? It's not like you're the first ever to revert any of my edits. No. You reverted the page move because you don't see the authority that I saw in the RfC's consensus. Therein lies the problem. So maybe we need more eyes on it, that's all I'm saying. And just fyi for the record, in all the time I've been on Wikipedia I have never taken another registered editor to any notice board. Not my style. So, Necrothesp. what is it exactly that I'm missing? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I really fail to see why you're so upset about a reversion to a move that you initially made following an RM closure! Very odd indeed. No need whatsoever for your tone here. Just open an RM. Conversation closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, so the only lack of clarity here is 1) you think an RfC attended by nine editors with an opinion does not have enough consensus to override an RM that also was attended by nine editors with an opinion and which resulted in no consensus, and 2) you think an RfC that has achieved consensus requires formal closure in direct opposition to WP:CR's Many discussions do not need formal closure (emphasis not mine) because consensus is clear. Perhaps this is a job for an administrative notice board – editor Crouch, Swale, what do you think? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, as the article was created at Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, moved away from this title, and returned to this title after RM. That is the current agreed-upon title. An unclosed and rather poorly attended RfC is not relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Still unclear, since the only title that has achieved any present agreement is Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire, which found consensus in the RfC. So it seems the correct path would be to hold the article at that agreed upon title, open an RM to rename to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire, which I will be glad to do, and all of us abide by its decision. Is this suitable? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I'm happy to leave the article at the title that was agreed, since it was moved yet again without discussion. But it's obviously your prerogative to open a new RM and I will naturally abide by its decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- You appear then to agree to move the page back to the title that is presently supported by consensus in the RfC, and then open an RM to propose the move to Houghton Hall, Yorkshire. Is that correct? I will be glad to leave an opinion there, since I have learned much about it from the previous RM and the RfC. If the new RM results in no consensus, then the closer can determine whether or not the RfC consensus prevails. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus of an RfC is only clear if it is well-attended. This was not (which is presumably why it has never been closed). And I didn't say it was unpublicised, as you will see if you reread what I actually wrote. As to "high-handed", I was referring to your claims that I should have discussed the move when you did not. The course of action is clear. Open another RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting spin on it. You answered my question and then some. Well aware of the RM's decision, no need for the reminder since it was my decision. I had no obligation to discuss it further because the RfC's decision is clear, as I said, so your choice of "high-handed" should not be projected back onto me. As you should know (as an experienced editor), an RfC does not require formal closure if the consensus is clear, and it is the consensus of the RfC that takes precedence over the lack of consensus in the RM. So the only question that remains is your accusation that the RfC was unpubicized, which the first section of it appears to deny. It was a publicized RfC that received sufficient attention to achieve consensus. By removing the decision of the RfC you are going against the present consensus, so please return the page to the title that is presently supported by consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
Technical news
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Bigo Barnett
[edit]Just wanted to drop in and counsel a bit more effort in your exchanges with other editors. Your significant experience should lead you to make persuasive arguments. When you use your experience as a cudgel — suggesting that someone should simply bow to your edit tally, you are working directly against the interests of what is supposed to be a meritocracy of ideas. Johnadams11 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, what I am doing is using my experience to try to advise on an acceptable title. Your endless insistence on using his nickname as a disambiguator was never going to be accepted. But you wouldn't have it, because you believed it was the best disambiguator. I merely pointed out to you that had you a little more experience you would know that this is not how things are done on Wikipedia. There is long consensus for this. And consensus is how we operate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I must say, I'm both impressed and dismayed by what appears to be a continual, and apparently willful, misunderstanding of the debate. I indicated not once, but at least four times, that I was comfortable with any number of options for replacing the word "Protestor." To describe this as "endless insistence," is an argument made of either ignorance or bad faith.
- Further, the idea, that you "merely" pointed out (that nicknames are not often used) similarly ignores the more important theme: That is, your opposition to anything at all that changed the status quo which you viewed as working "perfectly well." Given that you MUST know that the word "protestor" utterly misrepresents Barnett's notability, I get the distinct sense you somehow had the view that you were defending the fellow institutionalist who authored the article -- and felt someone like me didn't have the gravitas or experience to suggest changing HIS disambiguator.
- In the end, it took a uninvolved party what appeared to be only minutes to conclude the general correctness of my view. You really ought to use this opportunity to explore whether your obvious deep engagement with this platform has caused you to lose some of the critical thinking skills that I assume you at one point had. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that you MUST know that the word "protestor" utterly misrepresents Barnett's notability, I get the distinct sense you somehow had the view that you were defending the fellow institutionalist who authored the article -- and felt someone like me didn't have the gravitas or experience to suggest changing HIS disambiguator.
Then your "distinct sense" is completely wrong, as I neither know nor care who authored the article! Neither do I care about the subject of the article. I do, however, know about how Wikipedia titles its articles, have been involved in these debates for many years and seen consensus evolve during that time. Simple fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)- Well I assume then you'll appeal the MR. I look forward to getting least one layer of depth on your low effort arguments that Barnett was "protestor" and that this term describes him "perfectly well." Johnadams11 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, I won't appeal it as the new name was decided by consensus. I may not agree it was necessary to move it (and I still do not), but that's irrelevant. I take it that you really do not understand consensus. That's how everything works here and it would behove you to take that on board instead of coming along and claiming that consensus built over many years is wrong and you know best and that "institutionalists" are undermining your superior arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well I assume then you'll appeal the MR. I look forward to getting least one layer of depth on your low effort arguments that Barnett was "protestor" and that this term describes him "perfectly well." Johnadams11 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Pinged on RM page
[edit]https://metro.co.uk/video/apartment-block-collapses-anl-urfa-earthquake-2871281/ Metro is a mainstream newspaper in UK, the main evening paper in London. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would hardly call Metro a "mainstream newspaper". It is a free newssheet mostly distributed at railway stations and the like. Not just in London, and in the mornings, not the evenings. I would give its reporting no more credit than that of its parent, the Daily Mail. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
KVV Subrahmanyam
[edit]Hello Necrothesp, Thanks for your reply. Pls help in providing suggestions for improving this article. Can we remove the delete tag please? Pls let me know. 04:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbala1055 (talk • contribs)
Hello Necrothesp,
Thanks a lot for copyediting the article. I have some references to vizag steel plant. (https://www.vizagsteel.com/index.asp) and some newspaper references. Can I add them inline ?
By when can we remove the delete tag? Pls let me know. Kbala1055 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Colombian emigrants to England
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Colombian emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Request for unprotection of list of honorary British knights and dames
[edit]This page was protected 13 years ago and nowadays it's edited somewhat infrequently. Over the past few months however, what appears to be 1 or 2 users with very volatile IPs have made a long slew of valid edit requests (see the talk page). I think the page is worth unprotecting. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I requested the page be unprotected through RFUP. It's been done now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Snowmanonahoe: I originally protected it due to the number of editors who were adding anyone who had been knighted, not understanding that this was only for honorary knighthoods (and probably not understanding the difference). Hopefully we won't have another slew of these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposed deletions
[edit]Hello, Necrothesp,
I just wanted to thank you for looking over some recent PRODs. They don't get as much attention as articles nominated for AFD discussions so it's great when an experienced editor reviews them before they are deleted. Of course, these articles can be restored upon request but for many of these obscure articles, no one might even realize they have been deleted once they are gone. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought I'd mention that a fair number of articles that are PROD'd are tagged by newer editors or IP editors, perhaps because it doesn't require the level of knowledge of policies and guidelines that defending an AFD nomination requires...and also IP editors can not nominate artices for AFD discussions. Just an observation though. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Liz. Thanks. I generally try to look at the prod categories once a week to check whether any have been incorrectly prodded. Most are valid prods, but there are always a few that aren't. Sadly, prodding seems to be used as an alternative to AfD even by some experienced editors who should know better. I have a suspicion that some like to use it instead so it does slip under the radar! I should point out that I have in the past been threatened by editors with "sanctions" for deprodding articles (which, of course, is any editor's right) and have a couple of times even been reported at ANI for "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" for doing so. Some people really do not like to be thwarted in their deletionist agenda! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Technical news
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
Arbitration
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
Red Wizards of Thay
[edit]Since you voted in the AFD to keep, I am just letting you know that I am working on Draft:Red Wizard. :) BOZ (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also got Draft:Harpers (Forgotten Realms) restored. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Judaea
[edit]I was somewhat remiss in not checking the talk pages for previous RMs, but I spend a lot of my time out in the wilderness on pages where barely a talk page exists and the parenthetical title frankly didn't look like something that would have emerged from an RM properly weighing the options and considering WP:NCDAB. As it was, it was a rather cursory affair it seems. Fresh RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Autry technology Center
[edit]I notice you moved the discussion on deletion of the Autry Technology Center page to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oklahoma page pretty much verbatim. What's your take on this? I can't understand why there is even an argument about sufficient notability to get a page for a school of higher education that’s fully accredited, was formed back in 1967, has 22,724 current students, fills 2 physical campuses and has an on-line presence, and has been specifically named by employers as a reason they located to that town. ESPECIALLY when you compare Autry against the laundry list of other pages of far smaller/more mediocre schools, including high schools, that reviewers have looked at and concluded are worthy of a page. The article, of course, can always be tweeked but—- arguing the subject is unworthy of a page? Really??! TulGuy (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you've got the wrong person. I merely added the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools so it would be seen by a wider audience. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
user page vandalism
[edit]If you don't want people vandalizing your user page I think you should semi-protect or protect it if that's possible. 205.213.208.210 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
A pointer for sources?
[edit]Hi! If I recall correctly, you had a knack for finding sources for older English/UK biographies, any tips on where to look for Charles Howard, 9th Earl of Suffolk? There's no notability concern, but I'd like to get rid of the {{Unreferenced}} maintenance tag nevertheless. Ljleppan (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! You objected to my proposed deletion of Maurice Aubert on the grounds that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO 1; what exactly are you basing that assessment on? As I mentioned in the proposal, the sources in the French article are mostly unusable, and none of them even mention any awards or nominations. I'd really like to understand your thought process for this, because I seem to be missing something that's very obvious to you. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- The French article mentions a number of significant awards. Prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. Any hint that an article may be notable, and AfD is the correct way to proceed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that you have made the same objection in the deletion discussion, but there are still no sources for these supposed awards. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Which is why it needs further discussion so maybe someone can find some. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that you have made the same objection in the deletion discussion, but there are still no sources for these supposed awards. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Category:Tibetan emigrants has been nominated for renaming
[edit]Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Arbitration
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
Miscellaneous
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Barbadian emigrants to Wales
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Barbadian emigrants to Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Emigrants from Georgia (country) to Switzerland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Indonesian emigrants to the United Kingdom indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Obscene Publications Squad
[edit]It's a lousy redirect, the article it points to isn't, except in passing, about the subject. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. But feel free to expand it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Hi, I saw your opinion at Silver Star discussion.
I think that you are good at military field.
If you have spare time, Can you participate in below discussion?
Spartan_3000 Discussion
Anyway, Thanks!Footwiks (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The Red Countess
[edit]But that's the point - Wikipedia does not run on common knowledge among those who already know about a subject, but on relevant citations from reliable sources. Thank you for inserting two now.Sbishop (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that I had already included a reliable source, which for some bizarre reason you doubted. Which seemed to me to be some sort of WP:POINTY deletion of properly sourced material. If an experienced editor adds a sourced fact then it is frankly bad form to delete it without checking it first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
ANI Notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is specifically a request there for you to clarify whether this comment was meant seriously or in jest. Thanks in advance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Last Change
[edit]Why do you keep taking down the links to Tim Duncan and David Robinson on the Duncan Robinson page? What's the purpose of it? Wikipedia should be linking to other articles always 108.49.234.81 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please see MOS:DABONE. On disambiguation pages we do not link everything, but only a single link per line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
- As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
- Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Miscellaneous
- Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.
Speedy deletion nomination of Alabama State Parks Ranger Division
[edit]A tag has been placed on Alabama State Parks Ranger Division requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.
Technical news
- Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.
Arbitration
- Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
ANI Notice
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding lack of civility in WP:CFD. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Articles about Korean War
[edit]Hello, Necrothesp~ Recently, I created articles about Korean War
But some user want to delete these articles. If you have the spare time, please participate in the discussion.
- United Nations Forces in the Korean War
- Medical support in the Korean War
- United Kingdom in the Korean War
Best regards Footwiks (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Listed buildings
[edit]I deproded The Margaret Catchpole, Ipswich as a gradeII* listed pub which seems to have enough sources. I'd say most pubs that are listed even at grade II are likely to be notable as many will have other coverage beyond the listing and are important to the community as opposed to a private modest house which may not. There is also Draft:Isaacs on the Quay which is grade II* but the warehouse is grade I
I also have a draft RFC at User:Crouch, Swale/Listed buildings and I'm wondering if you have anything you wish to add/any suggestions or anyone else who isn't in the pings or any other pages such as User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for heritage-listed buildings that may be of interest. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why you think an RfC is necessary, given all listed buildings very clearly meet WP:GEOFEAT. The implication is that a special case should be made for British listed buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) and the fact many doesn't seem to have any sourcing outside the listing. I'd question if all listed buildings in England or other countries should be presumed notable. See de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Kauns for example where it seems only the church has an article or in England Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria where only 3 out of 93 have articles. It would probably be better for both places to just cover the buildings in the municipality list as we do and only have articles for a few of them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- But whether they have articles yet is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It just means nobody has yet written one. But, as I said, I see no reason to make a special case for listed buildings in the UK. It sets a dangerous precedent for deletionists who would dearly love to get as many articles removed as possible. The UK lists a lot of buildings because (a) we have a lot of historic buildings, and (b) because we're unusually good at designating and protecting our heritage. Much better, in fact, than most other European countries, and worlds better than the vast majority of non-European countries (with the exception of the USA and former Dominions). Almost any building that is listed Grade II in England would probably make the NRHP in the United States because our built heritage history goes back much, much further, and you'd certainly get screams of protest if you tried to remove the WP:GEOFEAT status for buildings on that. Why create a special RfC just for the UK? It's just asking for trouble. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I now not talking about just the UK I'm talking about all countries. I'd be skeptical we need a standalone article on every listed building or equivalent. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- But whether they have articles yet is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It just means nobody has yet written one. But, as I said, I see no reason to make a special case for listed buildings in the UK. It sets a dangerous precedent for deletionists who would dearly love to get as many articles removed as possible. The UK lists a lot of buildings because (a) we have a lot of historic buildings, and (b) because we're unusually good at designating and protecting our heritage. Much better, in fact, than most other European countries, and worlds better than the vast majority of non-European countries (with the exception of the USA and former Dominions). Almost any building that is listed Grade II in England would probably make the NRHP in the United States because our built heritage history goes back much, much further, and you'd certainly get screams of protest if you tried to remove the WP:GEOFEAT status for buildings on that. Why create a special RfC just for the UK? It's just asking for trouble. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) and the fact many doesn't seem to have any sourcing outside the listing. I'd question if all listed buildings in England or other countries should be presumed notable. See de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Kauns for example where it seems only the church has an article or in England Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria where only 3 out of 93 have articles. It would probably be better for both places to just cover the buildings in the municipality list as we do and only have articles for a few of them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
While I know that you have your own personal notability preferences, please don't tell new users that secondary schools are still automatically notable. I've taken it to AfD per protocol. Declining PRODs isn't inherently an administrator action, but it's going to be interpreted differently when an admin says that. Apart from that, why would British secondary schools somehow be inherently more notable than those in another place? Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything of the sort. I deprodded it, as I am entirely at liberty to do. Prods are for uncontroversial deletion only. A fact that is conveniently overlooked by far too many editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, deprodding is available on nearly any grounds, and that contestation is grounds for an AfD. Calling it a "controversial" PROD is a stretch, it appears to be controversial to you because you have a set of personal inclusion standards that are very broad and are at odds with the consensus for such articles that has prevailed for years. Once again, I can't say that I understand why western secondary schools should merit a special exception; the usual complaint is that enwiki ignores non-Western topics in favor of marginal Western or English topics. However, my main concern is that in deprodding it, you gave the article creator the impression that you were citing current inclusion guidelines, which is not the case. Your response at AfD is a bit over the top too. I'm fine with whatever the outcome is, but please lay off the "complete misrepresentation" accusations. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have little else to add, other than I stand by everything I have said here, on the deprodding and at the AfD. I entirely agree about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, incidentally. However, I've given up deprodding most non-western school articles because the deletionists have got their way over those and it's a waste of my time. This is very definitely not the case with western school articles as the AfD thus far proves. Given there are already two keep votes, deletion was hardly uncontroversial, which entirely proves my point whichever way it eventually goes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- In an ANI thread in February you were asked to stop misrepresenting school notability. I am generally sympathetic to keeping articles about things, events and places (I have different views concerning people or organizations who have not necessarily sought a place in WP, or those who have all too avidly tried for one), but I disagree that somehow GNG can be stretched to apply to any secondary school (leaving out the peculiar Western stipulation), which appears me to be sliding into mere proof of existence, that you are using to posit automatic notability. This isn't something that to me merits a return to ANI, but I remind you that sentiment was running against your stance. I'm also not a fan of AfDs as hills to die on, so I've said all I will say there, and if your reference work (thank you for that) is seen as satisfactory at AfD, I am content. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
In an ANI thread in February you were asked to stop misrepresenting school notability.
Where's that then? I can't find it. I have misrepresented nothing whatsoever. I would remind you that the AfD is currently running in favour of keeping this article. So my decision to deprod was obviously a correct one (not that it actually needed to be, as any editor can deprod any article without any justification whatsoever). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)- Sorry, January 2018 [1]. I was looking at the archive's timestamp, which must have been edited by a bot recently. I do not see anything in the last five years that would affect the admonishment in that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, so you're citing a five-year-old discussion and claiming it has relevance here? No, it does not. I'm not citing consensus or SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I removed a prod, as I am entitled to do, and expressed an opinion about notability (backed up by sources) at AfD, as I am entitled to do. Once again, misrepresentation. Please cease. I am rather tired, incidentally, of suggestions that deprodding is not valid. It is always valid, for any reason or none, as clearly laid out in WP:PROD. I am mystified as to why editors don't like taking articles to AfD for full discussion. Surely discussion is a good thing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- You keep stating that I objected to the dePROD. As my very first message in this thread states, it's your assertion in the edit summary [2] that "British secondary schools have always been found to be notable." Perhaps by you, but that's a misstatement of the school notability guidelines, which the new user accepted as gospel [3] That is my concern, I couldn't care less about dePRODding or AfD. That is why I opened this discussion, not because of the dePROD. You were leading a rather young (apparently) new user astray. That is the source of my initial post on this page, not what you appear to think is a procedural issue. Please take more care with how an edit summary might be percieved. "I disagree, I think it's notable" is not an implied statement of policy or consensus, and we would not be having this conversation if you had stated it as your standard, not the encyclopedia's. It's a small point that doesn't merit more discussion, and perhaps I did not state it as plainly as I could have at the top of this thread. I'll not trouble you again. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Good grief. I made a true statement. They have always been found to be notable at AfD. I don't honestly recall any British secondary school ever being deleted at AfD. That clearly means that prodding a British secondary school is not uncontroversial and should not be done. And throwing around ANI as some sort of implied threat is beneath an admin. I've seen it before from obsessive deletionists who object to other editors deprodding anything and forcing them do a bit of work by taking articles to AfD. I do not expect it from an experienced administrator. You know as well as I do that I have done everything within guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- And the fact the article has been easily kept at AfD just illustrates that the prod was not uncontroversial! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Good grief. I made a true statement. They have always been found to be notable at AfD. I don't honestly recall any British secondary school ever being deleted at AfD. That clearly means that prodding a British secondary school is not uncontroversial and should not be done. And throwing around ANI as some sort of implied threat is beneath an admin. I've seen it before from obsessive deletionists who object to other editors deprodding anything and forcing them do a bit of work by taking articles to AfD. I do not expect it from an experienced administrator. You know as well as I do that I have done everything within guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- You keep stating that I objected to the dePROD. As my very first message in this thread states, it's your assertion in the edit summary [2] that "British secondary schools have always been found to be notable." Perhaps by you, but that's a misstatement of the school notability guidelines, which the new user accepted as gospel [3] That is my concern, I couldn't care less about dePRODding or AfD. That is why I opened this discussion, not because of the dePROD. You were leading a rather young (apparently) new user astray. That is the source of my initial post on this page, not what you appear to think is a procedural issue. Please take more care with how an edit summary might be percieved. "I disagree, I think it's notable" is not an implied statement of policy or consensus, and we would not be having this conversation if you had stated it as your standard, not the encyclopedia's. It's a small point that doesn't merit more discussion, and perhaps I did not state it as plainly as I could have at the top of this thread. I'll not trouble you again. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, so you're citing a five-year-old discussion and claiming it has relevance here? No, it does not. I'm not citing consensus or SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I removed a prod, as I am entitled to do, and expressed an opinion about notability (backed up by sources) at AfD, as I am entitled to do. Once again, misrepresentation. Please cease. I am rather tired, incidentally, of suggestions that deprodding is not valid. It is always valid, for any reason or none, as clearly laid out in WP:PROD. I am mystified as to why editors don't like taking articles to AfD for full discussion. Surely discussion is a good thing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, January 2018 [1]. I was looking at the archive's timestamp, which must have been edited by a bot recently. I do not see anything in the last five years that would affect the admonishment in that discussion. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- In an ANI thread in February you were asked to stop misrepresenting school notability. I am generally sympathetic to keeping articles about things, events and places (I have different views concerning people or organizations who have not necessarily sought a place in WP, or those who have all too avidly tried for one), but I disagree that somehow GNG can be stretched to apply to any secondary school (leaving out the peculiar Western stipulation), which appears me to be sliding into mere proof of existence, that you are using to posit automatic notability. This isn't something that to me merits a return to ANI, but I remind you that sentiment was running against your stance. I'm also not a fan of AfDs as hills to die on, so I've said all I will say there, and if your reference work (thank you for that) is seen as satisfactory at AfD, I am content. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have little else to add, other than I stand by everything I have said here, on the deprodding and at the AfD. I entirely agree about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, incidentally. However, I've given up deprodding most non-western school articles because the deletionists have got their way over those and it's a waste of my time. This is very definitely not the case with western school articles as the AfD thus far proves. Given there are already two keep votes, deletion was hardly uncontroversial, which entirely proves my point whichever way it eventually goes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, deprodding is available on nearly any grounds, and that contestation is grounds for an AfD. Calling it a "controversial" PROD is a stretch, it appears to be controversial to you because you have a set of personal inclusion standards that are very broad and are at odds with the consensus for such articles that has prevailed for years. Once again, I can't say that I understand why western secondary schools should merit a special exception; the usual complaint is that enwiki ignores non-Western topics in favor of marginal Western or English topics. However, my main concern is that in deprodding it, you gave the article creator the impression that you were citing current inclusion guidelines, which is not the case. Your response at AfD is a bit over the top too. I'm fine with whatever the outcome is, but please lay off the "complete misrepresentation" accusations. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
RM notice
[edit]Hello Necrothesp. A few months ago you participated in an RM at Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Requested move 23 March 2023. There is now a similar RM at Talk:Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling#Requested move 4 August 2023 if you'd like to participate! Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Technical news
- The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
- Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)
Arbitration
- The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
- The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.
 | Necrothesp is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries. |  |
Administrators' newsletter – September 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
- A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment
.
Technical news
- Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)
Arbitration
- The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus
. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged tonote when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful
.
Miscellaneous
- Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to Kenya
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to Kenya indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to Malta
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to Malta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Maltese people of German descent
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Maltese people of German descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Guyanese emigrants to Scotland
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Guyanese emigrants to Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Category:British police officers in India has been nominated for merging
[edit]Requested move discussion
[edit]There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Johnny Morris
[edit]Hello, I've added a new topic to that Talk page about the absurd decision not to prioritise Morris over some obscure businessman, in case the issue can be revisited. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text:
Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
- Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.
Category:Aden emigrants to England has been nominated for merging
[edit]Category:Aden emigrants to Scotland has been nominated for merging
[edit]Re: Lance corporal
[edit]Thank you for your 176K contributions to wikipedia!!!
You reverted my recent edit on Lance corporal. I had removed the phrase "... and is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO)" You reverted that and modified it with " ... and is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO) rank where it is used." with the comment "clearly means in the countries in which it is used!" which to my ears seemed a bit snarky, for the following reasons ...
1) There is nothing clear about not saying "where it is used." If you don't say that, it is not clear which you mean:
- a) of the set of all lance corporals, the majority/typical are NCOs.
- b) the majority/typical organization's lance corporals are NCOs
2) You provided no citation that validates either interpretation of the original statement
- a) it is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO) everywhere.
- b) it is typically the lowest non-commissioned officer (NCO) where it is used.
I assumed you meant a) the majority of all lance corporals, anywhere, and given that it is the most common enlisted rank in the USMC, and there was no citation, I thought it better to not make such a declarative statement in the lede (which I viewed was ambiguous with no citation)
Now that it is clear that you mean case b), do you have evidence that in the majority of countries that use the lance corporal rank, it is in fact a non-commissioned officer? Or was that mainly informed from your UK military perspective (as mine was from my US military perspective)? If so please provide a citation somewhere in the article, or I belevie we should remove the statement from the lede.
Thank you for considering my position. • Bobsd • (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no problem with the sentence being removed. I didn't add it in the first place and it doesn't add much to the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll go ahead and remove it again. • Bobsd • (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The Treacle People DePROD
[edit]Hello, I saw that you deprodded my PROD for The Treacle People, saying it was "clearly" not a candidate for prodding. I am a relatively inexperienced editor, so I just wanted clarification on this if possible.
Thanks, Coalah (talk) Coalah (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I have just reviewed the process for controversial deletions and realize my mistake, I will be pursuing deletion in AfD. Apologies for the mistake! Coalah (talk) Coalah (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. Far more experienced editors than you do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:African emigrants to the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging
[edit]Administrators' newsletter – November 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
- The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
- There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
- Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
- Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
- Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
- Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
- Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
- An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
- The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Comment from SilverLocust
[edit]Hi Necrothesp. Did you see my reply at Talk:State actor#Requested move 31 October 2023? I would appreciate clarification about what information was the basis for your oppose, since it seems refutable by a brief glance at the article's references. I could be wrong, but I think you are probably thinking of the international concept (see non-state actor) rather than the U.S. legal concept (which is what the state actor article covers). SilverLocust 💬 10:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yemeni emigrants to England
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Yemeni emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
St. to St
[edit]Hi Necrothesp. My understanding of MOS in MOS:POINTS is that "Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening" apart from certain stated exceptions (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions), so when editing church articles (which tend to use the full stop randomly), I have been adding the point where it is missing. I've just noticed that you have been doing the opposite, such as at [4]. I have no interest in which way it goes (point or no point), though feel that we should have some consistency between and within articles, so that the reader isn't left feeling uncertain, and so every editor knows what they should do. Is there explicit wording which can be pointed to which confirms for sure which way it should be? Or should we look to gain consensus to have such wording in MOS to prevent confusion, and to ensure that all church articles use the same method, and that the title of an article matches the content - unlike what is happening at Avenue St Andrew's United Reformed Church? SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. Modern convention in British English, both on and off Wikipedia, is not to use a full stop. So American English articles should use them and British English articles should not. Commonwealth English (apart from Canadian) usually follows the British style. This has long been the convention on Wikipedia, although MOS pages do not always reflect this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the long held modern convention has not been well applied on Wiki, out there in the real world, and by the churches themselves. But you agree with me that the MOS pages do not give solid advice on this point? What I'm interested in is seeing that the MOS pages do reflect something that will ensure consistency. I'll start a discussion later (dashing out now to pick up my daughter from St Mary's church, which does it the British way - no dot!). SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- It has generally been very well-applied on articles about British churches. There is no need for consistency between articles applying to different countries per WP:ENGVAR. I should note that the "St." form actually makes no sense, as nothing has been omitted after the "t"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- In fact, MOS:POINTS does support use of "St".
Contractions that do not contain an apostrophe almost always take a period in North American English, but not in British English when the contraction ends with the same letter as the full term: Doctor can be abbreviated Dr. in American and Canadian English, but is Dr in British English.
This would equally apply to "St". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the long held modern convention has not been well applied on Wiki, out there in the real world, and by the churches themselves. But you agree with me that the MOS pages do not give solid advice on this point? What I'm interested in is seeing that the MOS pages do reflect something that will ensure consistency. I'll start a discussion later (dashing out now to pick up my daughter from St Mary's church, which does it the British way - no dot!). SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Metropolitan Police Office for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Police Office until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
- The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sir
[edit]Thank you for speaking out on the "Sir" infobox stuff. A couple of users have been waging attritional warfare on this issue for years, and I am glad people are finally pushing back. Atchom (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Most of the opposition seems very much based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "I disapprove of titles, ergo I don't think they should be included" is not, to my knowledge, Wikipedia policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Listed buildings
[edit]In terms of listed buildings with ancillary structures look at Playford Hall, Draft:Isaacs on the Quay (where one of the buildings is a higher listing!), Draft:Sharlston Hall and Plaish Hall. In these cases {{Infobox historic site}} has included all the structures in a single article. I guess the reason ancillary structures sometimes get listed separately and we get listing that say "including attached outbuildings" etc is probably because these buildings were listed before the rule about structures within the curtilage of the building was included. I don't think I've seen any modern listings saying "including attached buildings or outbuildings" etc where the main building still exists unlike say the Firestone Tyre Factory[5]. If any of my examples had have been listed today its quite likely none of the ancillary structures would have been separately listed assuming they are in the curtilage of the building. So in terms of notability I'd argue that ancillary structures don't generally need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree, unless they are especially notable (I would also note that many walls, gates, etc, are individually listed - they certainly don't need their own articles). Although they certainly should be included in the article for the main building. As usual, it's a case of applying common sense, something of which many editors seem incapable. One size almost never fits all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- The law regarding curtilage came into effect on 1 January 1969. There are still a few listings like Park Farmhouse and Barn To the Right from 1972 though. I guess its possible the barn could not have been in the curtilage or they just wanted to make sure it was clearly listed. Indeed I agree a few ancillary buildings like gates etc will need separate articles even though most won't. You're right one size doesn't fit all. I'm just trying to get some general rules. Look at Grade I listed buildings in Buckinghamshire#Aylesbury Vale which lists some 26 Grade I ancillary buildings to Stowe House none of which have separate articles though the 25 in the garden have sections in the garden article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
[edit]
P Aculeius (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Robin}} to your friends' talk pages.
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Thank you for improving a page I published
[edit]@Necrothesp: Thank you for improving Paul Emery (rheumatologist) with content, sources, and moving it from Paul Emery (academic). Particleshow22 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Receiver of the Metropolitan Police for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Receiver of the Metropolitan Police until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Security Bureau (disambiguation)
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Security Bureau (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Bensci54 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, Necro. Twinkle sent you this automatically. Looking into it a bit more, it looks like what I did at WP:RMTR to move Security Bureau (Hong Kong) to Security Bureau technically reverted a move you made in 2005. But now we have WP:NATURALDISAMBIG between Security Bureau and National Police Agency Security Bureau, so I removed the (Hong Kong) and (Japan) disambiguators from those two articles, and this disambig page is no longer necessary. Bensci54 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Security Bureau is clearly ambiguous. I have merged the disambiguation page to National Security Bureau. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Perhaps I was a bit to hasty with my trigger finger for removing parentheses. I do wonder if there might be a natural disambig out there for the Hong Kong bureau, though. Good call redirecting this disambiguation page to National Security Bureau, by the way. I hadn't seen that one. Bensci54 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of ambiguously named organisations we usually use parenthetical country disambiguation rather than trying to force some kind of "natural" disambiguation. There's nothing wrong with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Perhaps I was a bit to hasty with my trigger finger for removing parentheses. I do wonder if there might be a natural disambig out there for the Hong Kong bureau, though. Good call redirecting this disambiguation page to National Security Bureau, by the way. I hadn't seen that one. Bensci54 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Security Bureau is clearly ambiguous. I have merged the disambiguation page to National Security Bureau. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Category:Depictions of Cleopatra on film has been nominated for renaming
[edit]Category:Depictions of Cleopatra on film has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
List of historical characters depicted on film and television/Latin America
[edit]Hi! I just noticed your personal list of film depictions of Latin American people after translating the article of Javier Methol. Is it currently active? Is it alright if I help expanding the list? Best wishes! NoonIcarus (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
John Fordham
[edit]Hello. I am writing as a courtesy to let you know that I have moved John Fordham to John Fordham (bishop). You have a link to him on User:Necrothesp/List of historical characters depicted on film and television/Britain so I am writing to ask if it would be helpful if I were to disambiguate him for you. I am happy to do so if you wish, or to just leave it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've changed it. Although I'm not convinced he's not the primary topic for the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
Technical news
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
Miscellaneous
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
Pseudo-threat
[edit]Look, the topic aside, an administrator should know better than to use smarmy language and a suggestion of rapid blocking, as it could be seen as a direct admin threat of action. (Especially when there was nothing a reasonable user would consider WP:UNCIVIL for you to say is language worth of such a block, but again, not the point - even in response to something serious, such pseudo-threats discourage participation, there are other ways for an admin to address things without appearing to lord their powers). I've just been reminded of the discussion, and thought I'd say, I hope it was a lapse in judgement on your part there. Kingsif (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't like it then I very much suggest you don't accuse other editors of lying. It is frankly laughable that you accuse me of being uncivil when you had done that. I certainly wouldn't block another editor for a dispute with me, but you need to be reminded that other admins who saw it might. Please remember to keep a civil tongue and don't suggest that another editor is being dishonest (although I'm being charitable here: saying
Don't lie
is actually doing more than suggesting!). It is offensive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hungarian emigrants to Scotland
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Hungarian emigrants to Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits
[edit]They are discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Police_uniforms_and_equipment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Headgear What do you think? Dreddmoto (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The Headgear section of that article states that this band is not worn in Northern Ireland. Referring to the Sillitoe tartan which is part of the uniforms of the Belfast Harbour Police and the Belfast International Airport Constabulary. I could edit that part of the article to make that clear or, you could. What would you prefer? --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
If you don't want to do that edit, I'll go ahead with it. I'll also add a link to British police cap badges, in the same section. --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It was done. --Dreddmoto (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
Technical news
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Your conduct at AfD
[edit]I'm leaving this message in regard to how you engage with arguments at AfD. A good portion of your !votes at AfD provide frivolous rationales:
- Making blanket statements that articles are notable or meet GNG without engaging with the reason that the article was nominated for deletion, often in the form of a WP:CLEARLY statement
- Making up your own notabilty criteria
- Making OTHERSTUFF arguments or insisting that past AfDs must determine the conclusion of current ones because of "consensus", ignoring WP:CCC and demonstrating a misunderstanding of how consensus works
On its own, it's debatable whether this is disruptive or just bad practice. I believe it is disruptive, but I digress. The problem is that when people disagree with you, you often resort to personal attacks such as comments about other editors' intelligence, suggestions that they are acting in bad faith, or statements implying that they are being biased/racist. These are all from the last six months:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (3rd nomination) –
Any other claims are mere anti-monarchist POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
- Nomination:
By German law, he is not actually a prince, and there are thus no noble houses; and that seems to be his only claim to notability.
Other comments:As already stated, he is not actually a noble, which might have justified such an article, but the German nobility have been abolished for over 100 years
and...sources restricted to breathless human interest crud, zero presumption of notability for being the "head" of defunct noble family
andIf it is indeed true that the subject is not in fact a hereditary prince because such titles have been abolished, I would have to suggest that even if he is notable (I'll not offer opinion on that until I've looked into the matter further), it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to describe him as such, either in the article title or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not (amongst very many other things) a platform for advocacy for the restoration of German aristocratic ranks.
I believe I make a fair point. You omitted the previous sentence where I said he met GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark (4th nomination) –
Laughable that people support trans people being able to change their names, actors using stagenames and writers using pen names, but (for purely anti-monarchist political reasons) oppose members of established royal families using their titles. Bit of a double standard there, I feel.
- Responding to comments that he wasn't really a prince and we shouldn't call him one, despite him commonly being referred to as one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazakuka mosque shooting –
Say that about any such attack in a western country and you'd be laughed out of court!
- Responding to
The number of deaths is not a criterion for notability...
. This was a murder of 17 people. My point is entirely accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Mabel Adamson –
please just accept that you are arguing against longstanding consensus here
for which you were politely admonished by another administrator- Article overwhelmingly kept. Subject of an entry in a dictionary of national biography. Nomination was
I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria.
Which frankly beggars belief. Even when pointed out that all such people are kept per WP:ANYBIO #3 the nominator still would not back down and continued to insist that they were right and everyone else was wrong. And no, I was not "admonished" by anyone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Article overwhelmingly kept. Subject of an entry in a dictionary of national biography. Nomination was
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Davies (headmaster) –
There's also easily enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Ridiculous nomination
- The man was knighted and met GNG for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Benishangul-Gumuz bus attack –
If the murder of at least 34 people is not notable then what on earth is? Pure WP:SYSTEMIC.
- Citing SYSTEMIC is no form of personal attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Arundel County Police Department –
I hadn't realised being a county police department was a recognised criterion for deletion! That's sarcasm, by the way! We used to argue to delete police departmemnts with 30 officers. Now we're arguing to delete police departments with nearly 800. That's a pretty big police department. If deleted, it would be, to my knowledge, the largest yet deleted. How on earth is this assisting the growth of the encyclopaedia? And the article merely presents facts, not PR.
- Responding to
it's a county sheriff's department equivalent, no more than that
, as though that was some sort of criterion for deletion, and claims the article was just "PR", which it was not. The comments about size are perfectly true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Southampton Yacht Club –
No, not making things up. Speaking from a position of basic knowledge. Always a useful thing to have before commenting, I find.
- Responding to
I hope the closing admin is smart enough to disregard the above !vote that's making things up out of thin air wih no such consensus or sourcing
aimed at me. Article was kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Kumar (IPS) –
It's an informed opinion, based on the fact that nobody in such a position in a western country would ever be deleted (and is therefore covered by WP:BIAS). I can also point you to the sadly much overlooked WP:COMMONSENSE.
, among other rude comments.- What "rude comments"? The ones directed at someone who claimed that
there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal
and other such blatant ill-informed rubbish? Article was kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- What "rude comments"? The ones directed at someone who claimed that
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anish Dayal Singh –
Clearly some sort of joke. Head of a 314,000 strong police force and previously head of two other large police forces! Very obvious case of WP:SYSTEMIC.
- Once again, nothing wrong with citing SYSTEMIC. My point is completely accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Washington Bridge closure –
Laughable that editors are voting to keep articles on bridge maintenance and traffic jams in the United States when we're deleting articles about traffic accidents in other countries that killed two or three dozen people. Clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC.
- Again, completely accurate. And article was merged, as I argued for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulla Xolmuhamedov –
I can't quite believe that anyone would seriously believe that the commander of a large sovereign state's air force wasn't notable. Pure WP:SYSTEMIC.
- And again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saydulla Madaminov –
Verifiably commander of Uzbekistan's air force, which clearly makes him notable per WP:COMMONSENSE.
- And again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torre degli Sciri –
Are you joking? A medieval building that isn't notable?
- Well, is this not true? Article kept. You omitted most of the rest of my argument. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of police stations in the West Midlands –
Presumably, by "esoteric information", you actually mean "information I'm not interested in"?
- Responding to
For me that doesn't change the metric of a page that contains essentially esoteric information.
As I went on to point out,What is esoteric to one person is vital historical information to another.
Article kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Kashmir bus incident –
A crash that killed 23 people would be considered notable anywhere in the western world, so no reason it shouldn't be in Asia.
- What on earth is wrong with a comment like this? Article kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I know that you are aware this is an issue, not only because of your tenure as an editor and an administrator, but because while confirming this is a long-standing issue, I found instances of you rebutting other editors for making similar attacks, making up their own criteria, and making blanket "not notable" arguments. I see higher up on your talk page that you've received multiple warnings about this in the past, and I know I've raised the issue before. I don't want to have to escalate this, but it needs to stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, we've all heard this before. The claim that expressing an opinion at AfD is disruptive behaviour. There is not a single personal attack here. There is merely valid opinion and exasperation at deletionist nominations and ill-informed comments. Please WP:AGF and do not come to my talkpage to suggest I am not allowed to express an opinion or that I have any misunderstanding of Wikipedia.
The problem is that when people disagree with you, you often resort to personal attacks such as comments about other editors' intelligence, suggestions that they are acting in bad faith, or statements implying that they are being biased/racist.
What utter nonsense; I have done none of these things. I actually find this claim pretty offensive. You take comments completely out of context (take a look at some of the ill-informed comments I'm replying to in your selective quotes above) and use them to claim I'm doing something I'm not. If someone makes an incorrect comment then another editor has every right to refute it. Or are we allowing the deletionists to take over Wikipedia without challenge (that's a rhetorical question, by the way, as we clearly are!)?I see higher up on your talk page that you've received multiple warnings about this in the past...
Where's that then? I have certainly been threatened in the past by deletionist editors who couldn't bear to be disagreed with, but nowhere above that I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)- I don't find this response encouraging. You're arguing that these comments were justified because they influenced the close, which is in conflict with WP:BRIE, and that you are allowed to be uncivil because other editors may also have been. It's absolutely a personal attack to question someone's intelligence or to imply that someone nominated an article for deletion because of what country it's from.
- What's especially worrying is that you insist there's a group of "deletionists" who are out to get you and get Wikipedia, when all I see is several editors admonishing you for misinterpreting or misrepresenting P&G and engaging uncivilly when challenged on this. Looking only at posts at this talk page that have yet to be archived, I see four disputes that you apparently consider to be "threats":
- #Pseudo-threat – You found it
laughable
when an experienced editor raised concerns about whether your comments were uncivil - #St Mark's CofE School, Southampton – You became heated when another administrator admonished you for giving new editors incorrect advice about AfD
- #ANI Notice – Where your conduct at CfD was raised at ANI by an experienced editor
- A second section also titled "ANI Notice" regarding your conduct at AfD
- #Pseudo-threat – You found it
- This also seems to be a long term issue, as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Admin invoking SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfD found in 2018 that you would be sanctioned if you continued misrepresenting policy, which does not seem to have sunk in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since you seem to be a massive fan of misrepresenting, selectively editing and/or ignoring anything I say in order to fit it into your own point of view (and apparently taking it as read that other editors' comments to me are valid whilst mine to them are not; you also seem to be excessively fond of the word "admonishing", which I find extremely patronising) I shall discontinue this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who is in quite a few AfDs, I have seen Necrothesp regularly just copy and paste "meets GNG" in AfDs. I'm glad that Necrothesp as an admin doesn't close AfDs, because if they did they would all be closed as keep. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Utterly untrue of course. I usually only contribute to AfDs when I think the article should be kept and meets GNG. I do not comment on (or even look at) the vast majority of them. Yet more wilful misrepresentation of my views and my contributions from editors who don't like their own views being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Even news events qualify for GNG despite the existence of WP:NOTNEWS. Or inventing criterion like lots of deaths (deaths in itself is not a criterion, it's the coverage and lasting impact). LibStar (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- You know as well as I do that statements of opinion are perfectly acceptable. Nobody is "inventing criterion". Wikipedia is about discussion, and attempting to shut discussion down with suggestions that nobody should be allowed to express a conflicting opinion is against the entire spirit of Wikipedia and an extremely disturbing trend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Extremely disturbing? Perhaps you need to take a well earned wikibreak. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given your obvious views, I realise that you don't find it disturbing at all. As I have pointed out before, if the retention of articles was only decided using "rules" then we wouldn't have AfDs at all; we'd just allow admins to delete articles that didn't meet the criteria. I do realise that this would find favour with some editors, so long as they're the only ones entitled to enforce the "rules" of course, but it is not (yet) how things are done here.
Perhaps you need to take a well earned wikibreak.
I shall treat that comment with the contempt that it deserves, since it very clearly illustrates your own attitudes towards debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- Your own attitude to debate and being questioned on how you present arguments in AfDs is here for everyone to see. In this discussion, you attempt to silence and stifle debate of your opinions by using terms like "extremely disturbing". I find your conduct here is nothing I've ever seen from an admin in my 15 years+ on WP. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- 2 editors have now claimed you invent criterion. In fatal events articles up for AfD you claim 17 deaths is significant as if it's a criterion. Please point to me where 17 deaths grants notability to an event article. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I choose to ignore two editors who object to my challenging their AfD nominations and come to my talkpage to try to browbeat me into compliance with their views. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not trying to brownbeat you to comply with my views. You just object to anyone questioning your holy grail of notability. Please tell me which guideline grants 17 fatalities as an indicator of notability. I seek clarification from you as an admin. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Yet more wilful misrepresentation of my views and my contributions from editors who don't like their own views being challenged" WP:KETTLE if I've seen it in over 15 years of WP. It seems you don't like being challenged. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to be disagreed with. I expect to be given the same courtesy. What I certainly do not do is come to the talkpage of an editor who disagrees with me to whine about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again trying to stifle and silence discussion here... LibStar (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- If someone expresses a different view or opinion, are they not allowed to contact you on your talk page? How else should they contact you as an admin? I find it extremely disturbing and not in the spirit of WP that you dissuade others from expressing a view. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again trying to stifle and silence discussion here... LibStar (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to be disagreed with. I expect to be given the same courtesy. What I certainly do not do is come to the talkpage of an editor who disagrees with me to whine about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- LibStar, I have nothing else to add to this discussion right now, but I would like to correct this. It's not just "2 editors". In the AN discussion I linked to above, over a dozen editors decided years ago that these misinterpretations of Wikipedia P&G are disruptive, that Necrothesp is advised against participating in school-related AfDs, and that further infractions "can (and will) lead to sanctions in the future". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's great to know. It appears that Necrothesp has a history of this and now brushes off any feedback by looking to dissuade others from commenting on their talk page. The pattern of behaviour especially from an admin is extremely disturbing. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I choose to ignore two editors who object to my challenging their AfD nominations and come to my talkpage to try to browbeat me into compliance with their views. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given your obvious views, I realise that you don't find it disturbing at all. As I have pointed out before, if the retention of articles was only decided using "rules" then we wouldn't have AfDs at all; we'd just allow admins to delete articles that didn't meet the criteria. I do realise that this would find favour with some editors, so long as they're the only ones entitled to enforce the "rules" of course, but it is not (yet) how things are done here.
- Extremely disturbing? Perhaps you need to take a well earned wikibreak. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- You know as well as I do that statements of opinion are perfectly acceptable. Nobody is "inventing criterion". Wikipedia is about discussion, and attempting to shut discussion down with suggestions that nobody should be allowed to express a conflicting opinion is against the entire spirit of Wikipedia and an extremely disturbing trend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Even news events qualify for GNG despite the existence of WP:NOTNEWS. Or inventing criterion like lots of deaths (deaths in itself is not a criterion, it's the coverage and lasting impact). LibStar (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Utterly untrue of course. I usually only contribute to AfDs when I think the article should be kept and meets GNG. I do not comment on (or even look at) the vast majority of them. Yet more wilful misrepresentation of my views and my contributions from editors who don't like their own views being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who is in quite a few AfDs, I have seen Necrothesp regularly just copy and paste "meets GNG" in AfDs. I'm glad that Necrothesp as an admin doesn't close AfDs, because if they did they would all be closed as keep. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since you seem to be a massive fan of misrepresenting, selectively editing and/or ignoring anything I say in order to fit it into your own point of view (and apparently taking it as read that other editors' comments to me are valid whilst mine to them are not; you also seem to be excessively fond of the word "admonishing", which I find extremely patronising) I shall discontinue this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Lhude sing cuccu |
| It's a while since I heard a cuckoo myself but perhaps you live in more rustic parts? In any case, it's good that the weather is brightening and the birds are singing, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
This reminds me once more of the old rhyme, "Spring is sprung, the grass is riz". I have known this since an early age but don't recall where I picked it up. I just did another source search and the best history of its evolution seems to be courtesy of Barry Popik. This doesn't look to be quite good enough for Wikipedia yet but it's a shame that the title is currently occupied by an Easter egg. Perhaps, as an archivist, you know more...? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted content
[edit]I noticed that you deleted content in an article claiming "we don't do things this way on Wikipedia". It was clear that they were two players of the same name, and each page had its content with the sources provided. However, you decided to keep an old version of the senior's article, and completely delete the junior's one. I suggest that you create a new link for Matt Doherty Jr. that you deleted with the new content retrieved from the redirect, and move content from Matt Doherty Sr. to your preferred version of Matt Doherty (Northern Irish footballer), even though I believe the title should be changed to Sr., as the talkpage discussion indicated in 2022, users were arguing that any other player with the same name would cause confusion. Xxx2023 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- We don't usurp one person's article for another person. That destroys the edit history. The younger player's article was deleted at AfD and should not be recreated, especially not by usurping his father's article and moving the content of the latter elsewhere. It's not done that way. That's why we have RM discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- You created a new link for Matt Doherty Jr., yet redirected to Sr., genius! Where is the content for Jr.? Why did you not contact the users who wrote the content in the first place, before you entered the room blindly? At least, re-add the content which you deleted from initial redirect to the Jr. link. Xxx2023 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Easily viewable here! Nothing blind about my actions. Inexperience on the part of the authors messing around with the article which I have merely put right. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Doherty Jr. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The new article was well-sourced, I could not see where it was AfD! You completely deleted sourced content in both pages, yet you call others inexperienced! I agree regarding the edit history part, yet that ip cannot create articles obviously so I had to redirect and edit the talk pages as well. Anyway, if you readd the Jr.'s content to the new link, then they would readd content to the senior. Xxx2023 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to readd the material to Jr as that was, as I have already said, deleted at AfD.
You completely deleted sourced content in both pages, yet you call others inexperienced!
No, it's all there for anyone to see in the edit history, so I would request that you don't throw accusations around. As is the material for Matt Doherty Sr. If the IP wants to readd that then that's fine, but properly without removing edit histories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)- The Jr. article was deleted probably due to poor referencing at that time in 2019, even the users at talkpage in 2022 did not know about his son, that is why they argued in favor of the title (Northern Irish player)! I would retrieve content of Jr. as it differentiates between the two! I accused you of reverting blindly, as you simply could have managed to figure out the difference, and the new content for Jr. was worth maintaining. Xxx2023 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- It had to be reverted rapidly before it got established and completely buggered up the edit history. I've seen it happen too many times before. The RM clearly establishes that Matt Doherty Sr is not a good name for him as he was never referred to in this way. His son doesn't seem to have been referred to as Matt Doherty Jr either. I have no particular opposition to his page being recreated (and moved to Matt Doherty (footballer, born 1940)), but I can't actually see he's any more notable now than he was when deleted at AfD. And it would require another RM for his father, as we unfortunately don't know his year of birth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the new sources provided in both articles or not? Players were clearly mentioned as Sr. and Jr.! The other users did not do research in 2022 to check if there are more than one Irish player with that name, so you want me to wait for their approval to create new content for Jr.! I would redirect the (Northern Irish player) to Sr., as both players have that title! I do not want an edit war! I know the initial move caused that problem, yet sorting out links would have solved it in the first place! Xxx2023 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Jr. article was deleted probably due to poor referencing at that time in 2019, even the users at talkpage in 2022 did not know about his son, that is why they argued in favor of the title (Northern Irish player)! I would retrieve content of Jr. as it differentiates between the two! I accused you of reverting blindly, as you simply could have managed to figure out the difference, and the new content for Jr. was worth maintaining. Xxx2023 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to readd the material to Jr as that was, as I have already said, deleted at AfD.
- You created a new link for Matt Doherty Jr., yet redirected to Sr., genius! Where is the content for Jr.? Why did you not contact the users who wrote the content in the first place, before you entered the room blindly? At least, re-add the content which you deleted from initial redirect to the Jr. link. Xxx2023 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguating stage works
[edit]Hi Necrothesp. I just saw the move discussion at Talk:Monte Cristo Jr. (Victorian burlesque) and I just wanted to let you know that there are several ways that we disambiguate stage works. For example, to disambiguate from the more well known La bohème by Puccini, there is La bohème (Leoncavallo). There is also by year Abyssinia (1987 musical) and Abyssinia (1906 musical). And of course by genre as per the Monte Cristo Jr. discussion. Next time something like this comes up, you have options and can point to these as examples. I personally prefer the last names approach more often because it solves many of the issues raised by SSilvers, but as you pointed out, none of those applied in the Monte Cristo Jr. case. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The way to delete my page
[edit]Please advise to get this page deleted it is talking about me and i want to remove it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulla_Bin_Mohamed_Bin_Butti_Al_Hamed Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
Technical news
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Redirect of "American Episcopal Church" to "Episcopal Church (United States)"
[edit]re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Episcopal_Church&redirect=no
Greetings,
You changed this redirect to point to the wrong organization, as it being used in other articles pointing to a non-existent American Episcopal Church article.
Please refer to InfoBox: Redirects to wrong organization @ Talk:Anglican Church in America
This now redirects from the phrase "American Episcopal Church" to Episcopal Church (United States) (which has only ever been TEC or PECUSA).
I agree with you that TEC is by far the largest American/Episcopal organization, and it's historical perspective. But I don't know if it makes sense to have a redirect for such a general query, since there are so many flavors of a "Episcopal" "Anglican" "America". And sometimes, with attendant acrimony . For example
- Anglican Catholic Church (including Diocese of the Holy Cross) (87)
- Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (TAC) (12)
- Anglican Church in America (TAC) (51)
- Anglican Province of America (42)
- Anglican Province of Christ the King (37)
- Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite) (8)
- Traditional Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) (9)
- United Episcopal Church of North America (24)
- Episcopal Church (United States) (7,098)
I think the solution may be to do one of these -
1) leave the redirect as is, provided a clean sweep is done of WP to remove all links to the non-existent American Episcopal Church article, as I did on Anglican Church in America. I don't know how to do that kind of search and kill, but perhaps you do.
2) Change it to a choice between the top level Continuing Anglican movement and Anglican Communion and let the reader choose
3) Remove it entirely, since it may not produce the intended target.
Thank you very much!!! Or let's discuss!!! • Bobsd • (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- When people think of the American Episcopal Church this is clearly what they're thinking of, whatever its official name may be, so no, I entirely disagree that this is the wrong redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:British people of Tajik descent has been nominated for merging
[edit]Category:British people of Tajik descent has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Georgian people of Canadian descent
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Georgian people of Canadian descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sir...
[edit]Since you participated in the most recent discussion about the placement of "Sir" in infoboxes, I thought I would flag the fact that the debate has arisen again in response to another editor moving "Sir" to "prefix". There is the beginning of a discussion on Tony Blair but on Winston Churchill as well. Atchom (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Saydulla Madaminov
[edit]Hi @Necrothesp, you once participated in an [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdulla_Xolmuhamedov AfD] regarding an Uzbek military general. I have submitted a similar [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saydulla_Madaminov draft]. I'd be very thankful to you if you could review this AfC. Verajeans (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Scottish emigrants to Ecuador
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Scottish emigrants to Ecuador indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ecuadorian people of Scottish descent
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Ecuadorian people of Scottish descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
Miscellaneous
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
Wroclaw Cathedral
[edit]Thank you for the revert of the name change of Wroclaw Cathedral. That change had been made just a couple of days after I had been scratching my head over the varying nomenclatures used to refer to the Bishop (which I documented at Talk:Walter (bishop of Wrocław)#variation in article titling).
It was just a couple of days later that I saw the change to the article name for Wroclaw Cathedral which really irked me (the "traditional" name having been in use since the article was created) and though I wanted to argue the point, I just let it go because I wasn't confident about the strength of my case. All of this had really been about "discovering" the proper link for "Walter of Malonne", namely Walter (bishop of Wrocław).
So I'm glad to see that you came along and reverted to the historical name of Wroclaw Cathedral. Fabrickator (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Category:Australian police chiefs has been nominated for renaming
[edit]Category:Australian police chiefs has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
contacting admins listed as recently active
[edit]Could I request a look at the interventions of User:Maurnxiao in Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election, sections Infobox, Muslim Vote, and Workers Party.
A member of less than a week (although his very first post was challenging the status of sources as reliable, making me suspect he has been active under a different identity), entirely unaccepting of the principle of consensus, determined to see a level of coverage of one political party that is disproportionate to that given by mainstream news sources. Highly disruptive, unwilling to accept that his preference is not grounds to change the approach taken by the article. Time sensitive issue (election is in 10 days), so a quicker intervention would be desirable. Is seeking a topic ban suitable, or is some other solution more suitable.
With thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously I feel an intense urge to defend myself after the way in which you have defaced my honor as an editor on here, but I should also really say that I had already acknowledged the lack of consensus and had stopped pushing for an inclusion of the Workers Party in the infobox with pictures should it be reintroduced. My question had been at what point does a regional party become significant enough in Westminster to be included. You had also promised to push for a "topic ban", whatever that is, if I should continue talking about Galloway in the talk page. I didn't make a single edit anywhere after that warning, and yet you chose to smear my name on so many different user talk pages? Maurnxiao (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Necrothesp: matter now seems closed Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those battery titles
[edit]On my own search I found a misnamed Kentucky battery myself. Appreciate your eyes. BusterD (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- There's too much inconsistency in these titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Italian Army
[edit]Please stop moving Italian Army articles to erroneous names. I have reverted all your moves as they were renaming units in ways that are in error. I.e. it is 3rd Missiles Brigade "Aquileia", as the Italian Army designates all its missile units in Italian with "Missili", which is the plural of the Italian word "Missile". Same goes for the Italian Army Anti-aircraft units, which the Italian Army spells in its English communications with a lowercase "a". Thank you, noclador (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you know of WP:OFFICIALNAME? This is English Wikipedia and we use the English language here. This is simply not normal English. These are not "erroneous names". The names you have reverted to just look weird in English, as any native English-speaker would tell you. Personally, I advocate using the native name, but if we must use a translation (as we apparently must) then it is best to use a proper translation and not some weird hybrid translated by someone who probably thinks they speak good English but actually doesn't (and many "official" translations into English from foreign languages look very weird to us English people, let me assure you). I'm not going to argue the toss over this, but please consider what is normal in the English language rather than what the Italian government says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- As the Italian Army uses only missiles in plural for all its various units with missile or rocket launchers I believe we should use the plural in this case too. As for the anti-aircraft units: have a look how the relevant wiki article spells it: Anti-aircraft warfare; and how other military related articles spell it: Anti-tank warfare, Anti-ship missile, Anti-ballistic missile, etc. All such articles use a lowercase letter after the "Anti-". Best regards, noclador (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good grief. Of course they're lower-cased; they're not proper names! These regiments are. It's not called the 3rd anti-aircraft artillery regiment "firenze", is it?! These are the rules of the English language (e.g. 103rd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery, Roslagen Anti-Aircraft Corps, etc, etc, etc). I think these Italian units are probably the only military units on Wikipedia that do not use the capital letter-capital letter construction, which is what I was trying to remedy (and you have de-remedied!). The Italian Army may pluralise "missile", but English-speaking countries do not (e.g. 50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery). We also have rocket regiments, not rockets regiments, gun regiments, not guns regiments, rifle regiments, not rifles regiments, tank regiments, not tanks regiments, etc. That's how English constructs things. All you're doing is using a poor approximation of English because another language uses a different construction, and that's not a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- As the Italian Army uses only missiles in plural for all its various units with missile or rocket launchers I believe we should use the plural in this case too. As for the anti-aircraft units: have a look how the relevant wiki article spells it: Anti-aircraft warfare; and how other military related articles spell it: Anti-tank warfare, Anti-ship missile, Anti-ballistic missile, etc. All such articles use a lowercase letter after the "Anti-". Best regards, noclador (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is ABC News (United States). Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Miscellaneous
- The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
Category:Sultans of Bijapur has been nominated for merging
[edit]Category:Sultans of Bijapur has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
thanks for removing the prod
[edit]re -Royal_Automobile_Club_of_Australia the big question is - in the edit summary - the probability in terms of the late Douglas Adams and his thing about improbability, or is there something that it doesnt fit into google hits? Trove wise, it is very definitely notable. JarrahTree 13:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Joe Chambers (Entrepreneur)
[edit]Necrothesp, i intend to undo your change to the title. Here is the reason.
While Joe did work as a music producer approximately 7 yr, he was focused on guitar stores for almost 20 yr (1985 - 2004) and musicians hall of fame and museum (2003 - 2022).
because he worked much longer doing guitar stores and MHOFM, the short time he worked producing records is not appropriate for his career to be identified as "music producer"
I will wait until tomorrow to undo so you can reply if you want to. MikeMARS52 MikeMARS52 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection to Joe Chambers (businessman), but we avoid "entrepreneur" as a disambiguator as it tends to be a WP:PEACOCK term either self-applied or applied by toadies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Necrothesp
- I took the word directly from the obituary referenced in the text and the references.
- I visited the peacock page and there is no mention of entrepreneur on that page "to watch".
- please explain your source. Thanks. MikeMARS52 MikeMARS52 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, we don't use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Necrothesp
- The family would like to use Museum Founder/Curator
- is this acceptable? Thanks.
- MikeMARS52 MikeMARS52 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- "museum curator" would be okay if that is considered to be his primary source of notability (we don't use dual disambiguators). But what the family want is, I'm afraid, irrelevant. I would point you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Necrothesp
- Thanks for your response and helping me. Your answers are always clear and to the point.
- There is no conflict of interest. I am doing this project for completely free because i was flabbergasted that there was no wiki page for this amazing man. I never was in contact with any other people until (a year later after i looked for a page) when i called the museum and asked if the family did not want a page for Joe for some reason?. Joe's daughter said they did want one. I made it clear there was no money involved, instead a "labor of love". I have contacted her multiple times and she provided sources at my request.
- So, in this situation, the family has every right to answer my requests for their opinions.
- Please let me know if i am mistaken. i certainly don't want to create a COI!
- thanks for clarifing the single disambiguator. i will make a final change shortly. MikeMARS52 MikeMARS52 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- "museum curator" would be okay if that is considered to be his primary source of notability (we don't use dual disambiguators). But what the family want is, I'm afraid, irrelevant. I would point you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, we don't use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Ascalon
[edit]Hi. The naming issue there is to a very large degree a matter of political positioning. It doesn't concern you for I can tell, Iskander had some good points as did the latest contributor, but as a rule it's Israelis and pro-Israelis choosing the Hebrew name, and pro-Palestinians going against it - anywhere, no matter what. Here I really have no preference, as long as rational and encyclopedic arguments are presented. If a majority of English native speakers are very familiar with the Latin name, great, Ascalon it should be. If most potential users come from religion and archaeology, then Ashkelon/Ashqelon is the right choice. Redirects do the rest. I'll let others fight it out, but I can't take it anymore seeing how the "usual suspects", while acting out of intellectual laziness or conscious activism, are pretending to present rational arguments and opinions. It's become nauseating. Sorry if I offended you, you're a collateral at most. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suspected you might be wrong in your supposition. I support Ascalon because it is the common name I see as an historian, not because I am in any way pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi
[edit]Hi you can see this page move from Kingdom of Malwa to Kingdom of Malwa (350–545)[6] then page mover create new page by removing redirect & copy-pasting content for a separate page?[7] instead of creating a new article? Now present article "Kingdom of Malwa" is about a kingdom in Malwa region of northern India this kingdom ruled from (947-1304) CE but after the initial kingdom in the same region know as Kingdom of Malwa (350–545).
°Kingdom of Malwa that ruled the same region from (350–545) CE was moved to Kingdom of Malwa (350–545). Then from redirect new page was created for a kingdom that ruled same region from (947–1304) I think this page should be move to °Kingdom of Malwa (947–1304) page mover (PadFoot2008) made mistakes here and he created a new page for some kind of association to subject or COI so in my opinion if I'm wrong here then I do apologize!;
- Kingdom of Malwa should be a disamb page[8] where both these–1304) kingdoms can be linked there as;
- Kingdom of Malwa (350–545)
- Kingdom of Malwa (947–1304). 2402:AD80:AB:49AC:1:0:A489:8293 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
"Miligram" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Miligram has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 5 § Miligram until a consensus is reached. Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
Technical news
- Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
- Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ
Move review for Liverpool 1 (TV series)
[edit]An editor has asked for a Move review of Liverpool 1 (TV series). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. JuniperChill (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Guinean emigrants to Scotland
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Guinean emigrants to Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| You are truly a knight of Wikidom. I bask in your glory. RadicalUranium (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
Sir Andrew Beattie JP. DL
[edit]Dear Necrothesp,
You deleted all my family improved Sir Andrew Beattie History on Wiki - all very interesting facts ... you don't like.... I disagree with your thoughts ... Picture Copyright belongs to Me.... It cannot be shown.... if you want to revise the full history of Sir Andrew Beattie that I added please talk to me... picture may become available then... Aughalane House UFAP (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted your edits because they were not correctly added and made the article read poorly. Please edit per Wikipedia's editing guidelines (e.g. writing in paragraphs rather than bullet points, not linking external webpages directly from the article, etc). It should not be my responsibility to revise them to a correct format. As to the photo, you have uploaded it to Wikipedia. That means you are happy for it to be used. Making its use conditional on you being allowed to edit the article in the way you want is really not how we do things on Wikipedia, which is a collaborative effort. In fact, I can't see that you ever did own the copyright, as it's a photo taken of someone who died in 1923! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Nercrothesp,
- I appreciate what you are saying ...I am not wiki technical minded, apologies ...I have provided the full extra historical accurate points and facts and the family copyright photo to Sir Andrew Beatties Profile, you won't find another one ..
- When you get a moment ..please could you revise what I originally added and post to your satisfaction? Since you seem to know what your are doing and love the purpose of Wiki ... in my eye it should include all proven facts about Sir Andrew Beattie and for the greater good of Wiki and the Encyclopedia Britannica .... It is your job to embrace all new historical facts added and include them in the profile at Wiki... not just deleting them.... Aughalane House UFAP (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Dispute
[edit]Hey, we are having a little RfC at Talk:Kuči (tribe), and while discussing stuff, some of the users started modifying the article while the RfC is in motion, adding sources that were easily disputed, without any consensus. RfC is called due to, in my opinion, selective source picking by 4 editors currently active there. I tried reverting it, but they simply revert it back, and there are more of them so they can easily run around 3RR while i can't.
Are they allowed to do that? What can be done about it if not? The RfC is just my latest attempt to give some other POV, a NPOV that is not pushing one nationality or the other, i tried dispute resolution but they declined, and now during this RfC they are treating it as a reason to add as many sources they can (some of which have nothing to do with the claim) just so they could make their POV stronger. Setxkbmap (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Closed RM, unsure about the desired DAB page
[edit]Hi Necrothesp, I was in the process of closing this RM when I realized I didn't understand your comment here. What pages did you think needed to be listed at the base name page? —Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I have a thought about what might have happened here but I'm going to wait for your response before I make my next move. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are a number of other people called Georg Albrecht. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've created a disambiguation page at Georg Albrecht. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay, I see them now. Not sure how I missed those. Thank you! Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've created a disambiguation page at Georg Albrecht. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are a number of other people called Georg Albrecht. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
"Barnsley chop" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Barnsley chop has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19 § Barnsley Chop until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Category:Ghanaian emigrants to Wales has been nominated for merging
[edit]Category:Ghanaian emigrants to Wales has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fijian emigrants to Wales
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Fijian emigrants to Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
CSD C1 tagged categories
[edit]Hello, Necrothesp,
I tagged some categories you created as empty categories but I didn't want to flood your User talk page with even more notifications so I reverted my edits. You can find the information in the page history if you are interested. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Naftoli Shapiro
[edit]Why have you removed the category Category:Belarusian expatriates in the United Kingdom and replaced it with Category:Belarusian emigrants to Scotland? I understand you don't want the category you created unnecessarily deleted, however that doesn't excuse adding it incorrectly to this article. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because he manifestly was an immigrant. He lived in Scotland for forty years! An expatriate is someone who lives in a country for a few years, not a large chunk of their life, and generally intends to return to their native land. He, however, never returned to his native land. You don't have to take citizenship to be an immigrant. That's a total misconception. Interesting that you didn't delete Category:Belarusian emigrants to Israel, where he lived for only the last five years of his life! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- He also left ultimately Scotland to settle for the rest of his life elsewhere. Oxford define expatriate as "a person living in a country that is not their own"; in contrast they define emigrant as "a person who leaves their country to live permanently in another". I'd argue the expatriate category is more appropriate here. AusLondonder (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- And I would disagree. He clearly did live pretty much permanently in Scotland and intended to do so. He merely left in the last five years of his life to live in a country of special significance to Jews that did not even exist when he left his own country. That doesn't mean he wasn't an emigrant to Scotland beforehand. You can be an emigrant to more than one country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well happy to take to CFD. The category is utterly pointless for navigation with a single article and he would easily be captured by the expatriate category. I also note he was born before Belarus existed and educated in the Russian Empire and Poland and Belarus did not exist when he migrated. AusLondonder (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Part of a much wider category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok so you'd prefer to take to CFD? AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Couldn't care less. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok so you'd prefer to take to CFD? AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Part of a much wider category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well happy to take to CFD. The category is utterly pointless for navigation with a single article and he would easily be captured by the expatriate category. I also note he was born before Belarus existed and educated in the Russian Empire and Poland and Belarus did not exist when he migrated. AusLondonder (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- And I would disagree. He clearly did live pretty much permanently in Scotland and intended to do so. He merely left in the last five years of his life to live in a country of special significance to Jews that did not even exist when he left his own country. That doesn't mean he wasn't an emigrant to Scotland beforehand. You can be an emigrant to more than one country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- He also left ultimately Scotland to settle for the rest of his life elsewhere. Oxford define expatriate as "a person living in a country that is not their own"; in contrast they define emigrant as "a person who leaves their country to live permanently in another". I'd argue the expatriate category is more appropriate here. AusLondonder (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:English people of Republic of the Congo descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Always precious
[edit]
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
- An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
- Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).
Miscellaneous
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ghanaian emigrants to Wales
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:Ghanaian emigrants to Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
honorific_prefix
[edit]honorific_prefix is not for routine things like professor, but for knighthoods, "The Honourable", and "His/Her Excellency" (From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person) What's your opinion? Grimes2 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- My opinion is that this is rubbish, that it should be for any title and that "Sir" etc should be in the name field. The statement on the infobox template is highly controversial and seems to have been imposed by a small number of self-appointed "gatekeepers" with little or no discussion. Discussion since has been extremely inconclusive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- So why have you taken on yourself to trawl through articles changing something you believe to be controversial? Get agreement on changing the guidance on the infobox changed before implementing your own preference contrary to it. The infobox has a field for honorifics, therefore it should be used. A person's honorific title is not part of their name, any more than Mr or Mrs is. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- And also, just to note your habit of implementing this change without any edit summary is neither helpful or reassuring. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- A title is not an honorific. It's a title. That's why it's bolded in the first line of the article! Or haven't you noticed that? It looks ludicrous not bolded in the infobox. You will also find that the vast majority of articles have the titles bolded in the infoboxes. Only a small minority, usually of actors and other prominent people, do not. Consistency and consensus, as well as good old-fashioned common sense, would definitely suggest that they should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Consistency would be to follow the guide on the infobox and not deliberately implementing your own preference because you personally don't care for consensus. If every editor followed your example, where would we be? I don't know what the vast majority of articles do, I haven't counted. But I do know that you have diligently been changing dozens of articles to suit yourself, without so much as a note or explanation in your edit summaries.
- You also appear to disagree with the definitions in Wikipedia of Sir and Dame, which are described as honorific. However, I'm glad we are agreed that, regardless, it's a title and not a name. In 2016 Mr Rod Stewart was knighted and became Sir Rod Stewart. He did not change his name. He changed his title from plain "Mister" to "Sir", a title that is honorific and much more notable, which is why the infobox has a field for such things.
- Your issue seems to be about the bolding, and not the infobox fields themselves. If the lack of bolding offends you, perhaps you should suggest changing the infobox formatting, instead of combining separate separate fields' content to create what you want? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consensus! That's the whole point. No consensus has ever been reached. This has been arbitrarily imposed by a handful of editors who generally don't like titles and will brook no opposition to their views. That is not consensus in any way. And if you think "Sir" is akin to "Mr" then you are woefully mistaken. Sir and Dame are retained in addition to other ranks and honorifics. You are not Professor Mr John Smith or General Mr John Smith. You are, however, Professor Sir John Smith and General Sir John Smith. "Mr" is superseded by other honorifics. "Sir" is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- All you're saying is that ranks and honorifics stack up in place of Mister, because Mister is not an honorific title. None of it belongs in the name parameter, and if it was thought a good idea to include "Mister" in the infobox, the same would apply.
- Consensus can always be reached, even if some disagree. Otherwise there would never be consensus reached on anything. I don't see any motivation to not wishing honorifics titles in the name parameter, other than it not being part of the person's name. Same as a person's nationality shouldn't be in their place of birth. Or place of death in date of death. They're related information, certainly, but separate. That seems entirely sensible, and good and accurate categorisation and presentation of data.
- There are guidelines I dislike. But as a responsible editor I follow them for the overall sake of uniformity and the project. I either accept that consensus is against me, or attempt to change it through the proper channels if it matters that much to me. Simply ignoring documented guidelines and changing what others have written in articles, because I don't like it, is not the actions of a responsible editor, far less an administrator. Especially when it amounts to something as trivial as "I like to see it in bold, so I'm moving to where it will appear as bold." Either request the infobox design is changed, or convince others that "Sir" and "Dame" is part of the name. Since you already admit that it is not part of the name, the proper course of action seems clear. Your current chosen approach is not. Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Since you already admit that it is not part of the name, the proper course of action seems clear.
No, I don't think I ever said that. There have been many debates on Wikipedia about this, with editors expressing opinions on both sides. As I have said, there is no consensus here, just a template guideline which has not been agreed but simply arbitrarily written and defended by a handful of anti-title editors (and opposed by others). That is not in any way consensus, especially since the majority of infoboxes do not follow it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)- Saying those opposed to titles being in names are "anti-title" is you attributing motivations, and likely a mis-characterisation of their position. They are "anti-things-that-aren't-names-being-in-the-name-parameter'. But as you said, it is a disputed topic. Which is why you implementing your preference, over-writing others', across multiple articles, without explanation or edit summary, is not a good look.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Saying those opposed to titles being in names are "anti-title" is you attributing motivations, and likely a mis-characterisation of their position.
Maybe you should actually try reading some of the comments in the debates before accusing me of mischaracterisation! You'll see what I mean. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Saying those opposed to titles being in names are "anti-title" is you attributing motivations, and likely a mis-characterisation of their position. They are "anti-things-that-aren't-names-being-in-the-name-parameter'. But as you said, it is a disputed topic. Which is why you implementing your preference, over-writing others', across multiple articles, without explanation or edit summary, is not a good look.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consensus! That's the whole point. No consensus has ever been reached. This has been arbitrarily imposed by a handful of editors who generally don't like titles and will brook no opposition to their views. That is not consensus in any way. And if you think "Sir" is akin to "Mr" then you are woefully mistaken. Sir and Dame are retained in addition to other ranks and honorifics. You are not Professor Mr John Smith or General Mr John Smith. You are, however, Professor Sir John Smith and General Sir John Smith. "Mr" is superseded by other honorifics. "Sir" is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- So why have you taken on yourself to trawl through articles changing something you believe to be controversial? Get agreement on changing the guidance on the infobox changed before implementing your own preference contrary to it. The infobox has a field for honorifics, therefore it should be used. A person's honorific title is not part of their name, any more than Mr or Mrs is. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:People from Polgooth has been nominated for merging
[edit]Category:People from Polgooth has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Advice
[edit]What to do with people like CoalcityAces? Many, almost all, of their edits are problematic in various ways (unreliable sources like AI spam sites, copyvio, WP:NOT problems et cetera) and I can't reach them because they don't respond on their talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
Technical news
- Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Arbitration
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
[edit]Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]|
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Thank you for defending Wikipedia from deletionists and vandals. History6042 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – December 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
- Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Technical news
- Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
- An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
"Brian Wood (solider)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Brian Wood (solider) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Brian Wood (solider) until a consensus is reached. Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you and please look into the matter - deletion of information
[edit]Dear Necrothesp,
thank you very much for your contribution to the deletion discussion for the articles Constantin and Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski. I started and mainly contributed to these articles, and, as I disclosed on the talk pages, I am their grandson respective great-grandson Alexander Tuschinski, currently getting my PhD in history at University Innsbruck about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski. Both passed away before I was born.
Recently, user Axad12 has become aware of my activities on Wikipedia, and has been targeting articles I have been writing, trying to get them deleted, shortening them and adding COI and other warnings that I believe are not warranted at all by the articles' contents and style. He proposed both articles for deletion, mainly refering to my authorship as the reason and vague accusations of them being "promotional", not the contents. As you can see, I tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he essentially ignores arguments about content and style, mostly just claiming my articles are "promotional". Now, also since your post in the deletion discussion, he has been shortening articles I have written (including these two) removing a lot of verifiably true information because, for examples, it was published in Constantin's collected works, or Axad12 simply considers it "non-notable". Constantin's collected works, published this October, has already been selected by several research libraries for inclusion, including LSE in the UK, as you can see on WorldCat. Axad12 also deleted any mention of that book, for example. He further deleted information based on archival sources - I have become aware recently of the Wikipedia policy on it, and told Axad12 that all archival sources in the footnotes can, by now, be replaced by references to the book. He, however, deleted both them and references to the book.
Axad12 on his talk page also told me I must not write about Bukovina history (my field of academic expertise) if my ancestors were involved in any way, which I feel is an abuse of COI, since I always maintain a neutral tone and only quote sources, as I always do in my academic works.
By Axad12's behaviour, I feel he mostly tries to find reasons to delete as much as possible I contributed to Wikipedia, because of personal assumptions about me, not because of what I write or its notability, and his reasoning I feel is quite vague and subjective.
Axad12 also took great objection in me adding verifiably true information in a neutral tone on the site about me, Alexander Tuschinski. If my edits were against Wikipedia policy in any way, I apologise, I was not aware and believed transparency (disclosing who I am) and neutral, sourced information would suffice. Axad12, among other things, deleted many basic facts from that article text and infobox (date of birth, place of birth, Alma Mater etc), even though they are referenced in the article body. When I supplied him with additional neutral sources for those (as can be seen on his talk page) and asked him to re-instate, he did not. I feel his behaviour might not be motivated by assembling much verifiably true information, but personally targetting me for vaguely worded accusations of "promotion" - again, I am confident I never wrote anything "promotional".
This started when another user noted I had added my full, legal name (Alexander Konstantin Ritter von Tuschinski) to the article Alexander Tuschinski]. They apparently assumed that I had invented the aristocratic title (it is actually part of my full, legal name). The source I supplied might not have been enough (I publicly disclosed the full name at an academic conference, that was also streamed online), but I feel the very personal assumptions and attacks that followed against me and anything I write were unwarranted.
If you find the time to look into this, I am very grateful. These past days, Axad12 essentially started deleting facts, and when I tried to engage in discussion, he only told me personal assumptions, going so far as saying everything I ever wrote on Wikipedia is promotional. You can read it on his talk page, and on the page of the deletion discussion.
Thank you very much, and best wishes, Alexander ATuschinski (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please note, user ATuschinski has been warned by an administrator not to edit his own article upon pain of being blocked, here [9] (and related discussion [10]). I would advise against being canvassed into operating as a proxy for a user with a conflict of interest and would observe that I am not the only user to have deleted material in relation to this user's work (for evidence of which see the edit history here: [11].
- For further details of historical promotional activity by or in relation to Alexander Tuschinski please see the following thread at COIN [12].
- I have removed an amount of information from the family history articles, primarily because the detail was sourced to unpublished material in state archives or was unencyclopaedic detail. I have also removed an amount of self-citation by ATuschinski because self-citation is a conflict of interest issue and such widespread self-citation should have been cleared in advance via a COI edit request. My activity here has all been perfectly legitimate, is in accordance with policies and guidelines and has been explained in detail in the relevant edit summaries.
- If the user wishes to contest the deletions he needs to discuss them at the relevant article talk pages via COI edit request rather than reporting me to an admin in a very underhand fashion, discussing legitimate good faith activity without informing me that he had done so.
- Much of the material in the lengthy post above is untrue, e.g.:
He proposed both articles for deletion
(that was actually another user)he essentially ignores arguments
(untrue)he mostly tries to find reasons to delete as much as possible I contributed to Wikipedia, because of personal assumptions about me
(is a clear aspersion and personal attack as the removals have all been made with reference to relevant policies and guidelines and are not personally motivated).I feel his behaviour might not be motivated by assembling much verifiably true information, but personally targetting me
(another aspersion).They apparently assumed that I had invented the aristocratic title
(untrue, I removed it because it was sourced to a talk given by the subject, clearly not a WP:RS source).very personal assumptions and attacks
(unsubstantiated and groundless allegations of attacks are themselves personal attacks, as per WP:PA). Axad12 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Re: the penultimate point above, my edit summary for the removal [13] of the aristocratic title says :
Removed a claim added by the subject (in contravention of WP:COI) and which is self-sourced (a presentation he gave) rather than being based on published material as required by WP:V and WP:RS
. - Where is there even the vaguest suggestion there that I had
apparently assumed that [Tuschinski] had invented the aristocratic title
? - ATuschinski, I suggest that you strike the obvious falsehood, as well your other groundless personal attacks against a good faith user operating within policies and guidelines.
- If anybody requires investigation here it is you, for continually using Wikipedia to promote yourself, your films, your recent book, your concept album, your relatives (including the recently deleted article you created about your non-notable father [14]), etc., etc.
- Then there is the creation of articles for minor awards you have won, for obscure people whose comments about you were then embedded within your own article, etc., etc. Added together the entire edifice is the most extreme abuse of Wikipedia that I have seen for some time. Axad12 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Re: the penultimate point above, my edit summary for the removal [13] of the aristocratic title says :
Hello Necrothesp -- I was pinged to this discussion by Axad12, but haven't read much of the wall of text above. To clarify, I was the admin who warned ATuschinski not to edit the article about himself, which had in my opinion got into a bloated mess; I was intending to state that I would personally partial block the editor from that article rather than block them completely. I haven't looked into the history in enough detail (there's some accusations of paid/COI editors/IPs that I am not sure about) but ATuschinski did replace/write a large proportion (certainly more than half) of the article. I declined a G11 on the resulting article but, because it was at that point obviously in need of shortening, did some pruning with Netherzone, which I think included removing the material about Tuschinski's family history. I don't mind if an editor unrelated to Tuschinski decides that sourcing is there to replace this material, but there appears little reliable independent sourcing about Tuschinski in total, let alone material in an independent voice that states his connection to these historical individuals. Perhaps we need to consult a film expert who can read German on what the reliable independent sources actually say.
As to what name Tuschinski prefers to be included -- I'm honestly not sure where policy falls on that one. If someone verifiably Tuschinski has stated in public that his full name is whatever, and that can reasonably be verified, then I'd personally be happy to replace that in the article, and the same goes for basic biographical material such as date of birth and places of education that aren't inherently promotional.
Looking again at the article, I note that Axad12, Netherzone and Graywalls have since shortened the article quite a lot further since my edits, which I probably wouldn't have done. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I continue to maintain that the issue here is that the long post at the top of this thread is an extended series of aspersions against myself for making clearly stated policy-based removals. This was an activity in which I was actually only one amongst several users and in which a clear consensus of non-conflicted users therefore existed. Indeed it was a further non-conflicted user (Biruitorul) who first brought the issues to my attention.
- That the OP is a self-publicist is quite clear as he has gone out of his way to curate a lengthy article about himself and to include reference to himself and his borderline notable projects in as many articles as he could find. When a user is an effective WP:SPA editing only around the subject of themselves no further explanation is required that the activity is promotional. All of this activity was clearly contrary to COI guidelines and a significant amount of tidy-up by non-conflicted users was thus both necessary and inevitable.
- For the user to have reported this tidy-up to an administrator (especially in such an overly personalised way) only goes to demonstrate their routine misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles about Demeter and Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski have recently been deleted at AfD [15] in accordance with community consensus. Those articles join previously deleted articles on Tuschinski’s father [16] and various of Tuschinski’s projects, as well as the Tuschinski-related articles which have routinely been deleted on German Wikipedia.
- If ATuschinski wishes to install material on the internet about himself, his projects and his relatives then I'd suggest that he does so on his own website, in which case he won’t have to worry about WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO, MOS:PUFFERY, WP:MILL, etc. or about other users who feel that such polices & guidelines are the critical supporting components of a reliable encyclopaedia.
- Merry Christmas to one and all, Axad12 (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Necrothesp:,
- Merry Christmas. I see the articles have been deleted, and Pagini Juridice is now nominated for deletion. From the discussions, I feel notable Romanian interwar legal history articles are being removed mainly due to objections to my authorship and alleged "promotion". I would be grateful if you could assess this.
- I contribute to Wikipedia out of idealism, writing neutral articles and digitizing photos, aiming to expand Wikipedia with verifiable knowledge. These deleted articles were initially reviewed without objection, and I intended to write more articles on interwar Romanian legal history, particularly in Bukovina — an often overlooked topic suppressed post-1947 in Socialist Romania.
- I disagree with the notability arguments raised, as this precedent could justify deleting many articles on further notable figures from the Romanian legal and literary fields. I believe that discussion of the articles’ content/style has largely been sidestepped in favor of critiques of my authorship - from the arguments raised, I can't shake the feeling that if another author had written the same articles, there wouldn't have been such a discussion.
- Claims of "promotion" are unwarranted, and I respectfully reject them. Regarding the article about me, I added only verifiable facts as I would for anyone else. Sadly, Axad12 and Biruitorul (who deleted the articles) seem to assume improper intentions on my part, as seen in Biruitorul’s wording during the Paul Tuschinski deletion request or edits to Pagini Juridice alleging "subtle manipulation of sources." I addressed Axad12’s concerns on his talk page, and I object to Axad12's offensive characterization of my many well-sourced edits on various topics as "the most extreme abuse of Wikipedia." Axad12, I see you have done numerous contributions on Wikipedia and assume you act with the best intentions. I appreciate a nuanced approach to my work here, independent of authorship. If I have misunderstood or by accident misquoted any of your statements as you allege, I apologise - our past discussions are public, and I believe Necrothesp will review those.
- Necrothesp, thank you for your time. I look forward to your assessment. ATuschinski (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you believe that it is appropriate to contact an admin at their talk page and ask them to overturn a decision reached by community consensus?
- You put forward your arguments re: notability in the AfD, and you put forward pretty much all of what you said in the post above at at AfD as well. You lost. Just move on. The community has spoken. Axad12 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And if you are operating within Wikipedia guidelines, as you claim, why have so many of your articles been deleted, both on English and German Wikipedia? How many times does this have to happen before you accept that you are using Wikipedia in a way that is contrary to the basic policies linked to in my post of earlier today?
- Instead of attacking me, you need to have a look at your own conduct. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Please take this argument off my talkpage! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
"Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26 § Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul until a consensus is reached. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)