If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{
Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{
Talkback|Fayenatic london}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
This user talk page might be
watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
A
request for comment asks whether
partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A
proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The
fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was
closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Dolly Parton – an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in
country music. Quotations related to
Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: "I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
Nominated by
StalinsunnykvjСретение Господне ("The Meeting of the Lord"), a depiction of Simeon recognising Jesus at the Temple, from a fifteenth-century Novgorodskye School Russian icon.
A Song for Simeon, is a 37-line poem written in 1928 by American-English poet
T. S. Eliot (1888–1965). It is
one of five poems that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by
Faber and Gwyer. "A Song for Simeon" was the sixteenth in the series and included an illustration by
avant garde artist
Edward McKnight Kauffer. The poem's narrative echoes the text of the Nunc dimittis, a liturgical prayer for
Compline from the Gospel passage. Eliot introduces literary allusions to earlier writers
Lancelot Andrewes,
Dante Alighieri and
St. John of the Cross. Critics have debated whether Eliot's depiction of Simeon is a negative portrayal of a Jewish figure and evidence of
anti-Semitism on Eliot's part.
(
more...)
Bible Verse
“
May He grant you according to your heart’s desire, And fulfill all your purpose.
”
Psalm 20:4 New King James Version (NKJV)
Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission
here.
Quotes
"Faith lived in the incognito is one which is located outside the criticism coming from society, from politics, from history, for the very reason that it has itself the vocation to be a source of criticism. It is faith (lived in the incognito) which triggers the issues for the others, which causes everything seemingly established to be placed in doubt, which drives a wedge into the world of false assurances." ~
Jacques Ellul
At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling. May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.
@
Fastily: you reverted my blanking of
User:NeilBallantyne/sandbox. I'm raising this on my own talk page because I do this often, and other editors may be interested in the reasons. I usually do it while checking backlinks to a deleted category, so that
WP:CFD processes do not result in leaving red links.
WP:STALEDRAFT lists {{Inactive userpage blanked}} among acceptable options for such pages, and suggests deletion only as a last resort if the page is "problematic even if blanked".
In this case the page was not problematic AFAICS. I am therefore at a loss to know why you reverted the page to be a duplicate article and said "send it to MfD if you think it should be deleted". –
FayenaticLondon10:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi Fayenatic London. So if it's evil, then why not delete it? I see zero reason for blanking userspace sandboxes of established editors which aren't doing any harm. It'll be nuisance for when/if they return and it encourages unhelpful busywork amongst active editors. -
FASTILY 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)–
FayenaticLondon10:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"why not delete it"? – because (i) this is not the standard approach set out at
WP:STALEDRAFT, and (ii) it would take up other editors' time to have an MFD.
"zero reason for blanking" - incorrect, there is a positive reason, namely to save checking backlinks after deletions. That is to say, after the page is blanked then it no longer links to categories/ templates /anything else that might be deleted, so when those get deleted/renamed there will be one less incoming redlink from a userpage to be checked.
"it encourages unhelpful busywork amongst active editors" – e.g. who, when? If the editor is long gone, I just blank the page following the policy; if the last edit was more recent, I sometimes first update the red link, and then leave an explanatory edit summary such as
[1]. What has given rise to your reverting me – has someone complained?
Your reversion also goes against
WP:FAKEARTICLE which says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". –
FayenaticLondon14:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Fastily: the "emerging consensus" is that pages should not be blanked if there is no reason. The question then is what amounts to sufficient reason.
WP:FAKEARTICLE is clearly sufficient reason, so I have undone your revert on the above sandbox, which I trust you will accept was mistaken. Perhaps you are only disagreeing about whether the workload involved in checking red links is also sufficient reason. –
FayenaticLondon10:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
GreenMeansGo and
Serial Number 54129: Cleanup after CFD is what I often do, but userspace edits are only an occasional and minute fraction of this work. Just realised that we can filter contribs by namespace, so: what is it within
my userspace edits that means I'm wasting your time?
[2]
Note: within my unfiltered contribs history, it can be traced that I reached all of these pages by "what links here" for deleted categories. The blanked ones mostly required action under
WP:FAKEARTICLE.
Here is something different, a set of edits where I found an old abandoned expansion of an article on a user talk page, so I split the page history to a user sandbox and then advertised the sandbox on the live article's talk page as possibly useful for expanding the article. I'm posting this to illustrate that I don't waste other editors' work that could yet be of value.
Note also that where my blanking was not required by
WP:FAKEARTICLE, most of the users were neither long-term nor established.
I acknowledge that in some cases I could have left fuller justification in the edit summary.
If I have offended someone to the point where they have complained off-wiki, I'm not asking you guys to break confidences, but to let me know what exactly in my conduct is unwelcome. –
FayenaticLondon17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
For the record, Fastily just threatened me with ANI the next time I blank a user page (without referring to whether there was a reason or not), but then withdrew it.
[3] –
FayenaticLondon08:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi Fayenatic London. Would you please take a look at
these edits made today? They seem to be a repost or new redirect of a category that was merged (without redirect) following consensus at
this CfD. My feeling is that the changes should be undone but I'm not expert on the policy. Your merger edit was
here. Thank you --
Ham105 (
talk)
14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, my essay
WP:Category redirects that should be kept has no official status, and there is no firm policy on when to keep a redirect. I think it's OK to leave this redirect; it makes it easier for non-admin users to trace the change. It should be a soft rather than hard redirect, so I have changed it to use that. For info, I have also redirected the linked page on Arabic Wikipedia, which was already an empty category. –
FayenaticLondon21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Following a
request for comment,
partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at
Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The
request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports
partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.
[4]
Arbitration
Following a
recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
It's unfortunate when uninvolved people are caught in rangeblocks; how much more frustrating it must be when the person who's blocked them, who should be explaining, unblocking, or modifying the block is silent. Thank you for taking the time to reply to the many unanswered messages on Vituzzu's talk page at meta.
BlackcurrantTea (
talk)
15:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the appreciation,
BlackcurrantTea! I noticed that today Vituzzu belatedly realised that an explanatory notice which used to be at the top of his page went missing a long time ago, and he has reinstated it. –
FayenaticLondon18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Until I looked at the history I thought you'd added it. Good luck with the Puffin block exemption. Your message template changes will make things easier for others. Cheers,
BlackcurrantTea (
talk)
08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)reply
hi. I hope you're well. happy adminship anniversary!!! I appreciate all that you do. by the way, is it possible to close the section at ANI relating to my recent edits and posts? I have expressed my regrets, and my thanks to those who provided important feedback. I hope you don't mind me writing to you in this manner; I have discussed some items with you on occasion, so I felt I could contact you. I contacted one other admin about this as well, but I don't plan to contact anyone else on this. I appreciate any help, if possible. thanks. --
Sm8900 (
talk)
03:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Sm8900: thanks for your note, and I'm glad you felt free to ask me. However, I don't spend much time on the drama boards, and am not sure of the conventions for closure. To close it would probably require a bit of time to look into what has been raised there. I will leave it to the regulars, if you don't mind. And there may yet be further useful guidance for you. –
FayenaticLondon08:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Following an
RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A
request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a
discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your
Twinkle preferences.
Indeed I have seen that the old one was not converted to redirect and just did it (the bot sometimes ignores such requests). Please feel free to undo / histmerge / whatever.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
CfD: Pages/Articles including recorded pronunciations
I'm perplexed by what you mean by
this. It sounds like you're saying whether to delete the categories hinged on whether they were added through templates, which is not true. To remove—not delete—manual additions was a secondary proposal in case the primary one, i.e. to delete all categories except the
parent (which I've stricken), failed to gain consensus. But it did, or at least did not find any opposition for the almost two months it was open.
Nardog (
talk)
23:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Nardog: For the last step, templates need changing e.g. for the page
Stonávka. Do you know what change needs to be made, please?
Or I could change the close to "no consensus" on that one (articles split from pages) and leave it, as the comments about that are less clear; but many articles are currently in the "pages" parent already. –
FayenaticLondon00:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Ah, my mistake, I thought
Stonávka had that category without the usual -± Hotcat buttons, but apparently I was not looking properly. I was also mistaken to think that you had omitted to list two sub-cats on the CFD page – thanks for tidying it.
Hey, thanks for providing a link to the discussion on the talk pages - however, I take issue with you modifying my comment and leaving my signature as if what you wrote is what I contributed. Next time, just drop me a line and I'll make the change myself.
Hmlarson (
talk)
22:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I judged that it might be better to merge the discussions immediately like that in case people started responding to them separately in ways that would be harder to merge later. I confess that I didn't check whether you were still online at the time. –
FayenaticLondon23:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, if you want to be rude to me, please do it on my user page and I'll give you your fair share back. Don't cast aspersions in edit comments, thanks, especially when you haven't adequately checked your facts.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
21:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
In that edit I was intending to be purely factual, and was referring to
[9]. The edit summary "update" did not provide an explanation. I pinged you as a courtesy, since I was mentioning you, not intending any offence. –
FayenaticLondon21:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I am glad to hear it, but it's something I sincerely dislike as it can't be erased and can't be rebutted in situ except by the drastic means of a null edit, maybe I will do that.
For your information, I had WP:BOLDly merged the article as non-notable, and then removed links to it. Given that there really aren't any reliable secondary sources this should have been the end of the matter, but someone saw fit to revert the merge a month later. That's the tale. I've had enough of it.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Following the
banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee
resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a
pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The
report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
That's a prime example of a redirect that is definitely no longer worth keeping. It was useful when first created as a redirect from hyphen to dash.
[10]
WP:G6 is sufficient for summary deletion of category redirects that are obsolete or otherwise useless. Admins will see a pre-filled link to do so. Non-admins could leave {{db-g6}}, with a rationale if the case for deletion is not obvious. –
FayenaticLondon12:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ha! You are very welcome to take such liberties here. Thank you,
JJMC89.
In case anyone is interested: as I don't have any fancy programming tools/skills, I use Microsoft Word and Excel to do bulk edits on such lists. Both are good for search-and-replace. To split the columns, I replace " to " with "^t" in Word, which inserts a tab character. Then I copy the lot and paste into Excel, which by default recognises the tab as a column break, so it automatically puts the text into two columns. Excel is good for replacing within one column but not another (which was not required in this case). Of course there are many other ways to do such work, but these are the tools that work for me. –
FayenaticLondon07:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not a list of famous janitors (are there any? with COVID, maybe there will be soon), but a list of notable people who once worked as janitors. This is no more relevant than would be
list of notable people who once worked in retail - everyone started somewhere.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of janitors 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Years in
I missed out all the ones with 'by' in the name as I knew this needed an 'and' and couldn't be bothered to check which way round it should be. Complete list is at
User:Oculi/monk, If you wait a bit nearly all should be red links.
Oculi (
talk)
16:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
A discussion which may be relevant to you is currently taking place on
WT:HED(
section) on the wider picture of
WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the
relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting topics relating to categories you have contributed to (such as Durham University stubs), and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects those pages. Your views and input would be most welcome! It would also be useful to have an administrator involved, especially one who might bring an out-of-project perspective.
Shadowssettle(
talk)13:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ok, Thanks. Please don't worry about Leanne, she's fine. She survived the Borg altercation and is still kibitzing in San Francisco.
Mick gold (
talk)
08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Regarding your closure of
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions: first of all, thanks for the closure (quite a pickle!). Here's a suggestion though for a little amendment to your closure (if you'd think that a wise thing): you suggest "... there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus ..." as a possible next step. Based on what was discussed during the CfD another "next step" suggestion (not excluding the one you already mentioned) may however make sense too, that is, find consensus on more explicit guidance, (e.g.
WP:C2C's "... category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined ..." – my emphasis) – writing such clear definition(s) for a category naming scheme (as opposed to the insufficient "mentioning in passing" in the naming conventions at the time the March 24 CfD was initiated) and finding consensus for such description(s) in line with the current structure of the categorisation tree may allow to avoid lengthy and recurring CfD debates on similar composition-related categories. Anyhow, that's the route I'd take (without waiting, possibly indefinitely, until the next CfD is proposed). --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
09:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. Perhaps an RFC at
WT:NCM on music category names, rather than going straight to CFD? Ah, I see you have started a discussion there; would you like me to signpost it from the CFD close? –
FayenaticLondon10:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Re. "signpost it from the CFD close" not really, too early stages yet. No, just mentioning the option that developing (and finding consensus for) clearer guidance, so that next time "
WP:Naming conventions (music) is conclusive", and that "claims that
WP:Naming conventions (music) is conclusive on this matter were rebutted" would no longer apply, is a possibility apart from going to the next CfD. Where such update to the guidance would find broad consensus (if it can) is still open in this stage (first a guidance text that has enough support to be proposed on a wider scale needs to be worked out), but an RfC within a few weeks may definitely be an option. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
10:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Also, I definitely don't want to exclude a mixed approach of both approaches either: e.g. music-related WikiProjects giving it their utmost to develop a consistent guidance on the matter, but before it gets confirmed by RfC, someone launching a new CfD (per the current "next step" advice in the CfD closure), in which case the new CfD might confirm the guidance as developed, or work as a "back to the drawing boards" too. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
11:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't mind if you are just "thinking aloud" on my page if it helps you work out your ideas. But so far, I find that you are making contradictory points, and I have little idea what you would like me to add to the close. How about: "Perhaps broad consensus could first be sought for music category names at WP:NCM." –
FayenaticLondon11:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Change the last paragraph of your closure, currently:
It is not clear why Category:Compositions needs disambiguating but not the categories for compositions by date or setting, so there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus. Nevertheless it is clear that no changes should happen on the authority of the discussion below.
...to something like:
It is not clear why Category:Compositions needs disambiguating but not the categories for compositions by date or setting, so there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus, and/or for a clarification on the point in the relevant guidance. Nevertheless it is clear that no changes should happen on the authority of the discussion below.
[14] with all due respect, but aren't you overdoing it a bit? IEEE is an institution with many ramifications, all of which are relevant in their field. I guess you are overdoing it. --
Kku (
talk)
16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, what is with the mass prod? Do you truly believe that these IEEE prods are uncontroversial deletions, all with no recourse to alternatives to deletion, such as merge? Knowing you as an experienced, quite sensible editor, this seems unlike you. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}17:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi! While I agree with deleting non-notable articles, I must ask how familiar are you with the field of Electrical Engineering. I ask because of your bulk proposal to delete many IEEE societies. If you are not in the field, it's entirely plausible you've never heard of them, but that does not mean they are non-notable. IEEE is huge, and so the societies themselves are large - Circuits and Systems, the one I'm most familiar with, has about 17,000 members. (I don't know how this compares with societies you are more familiar with, such as the
Biblical Creation Society, but I'd not be surprised if it's similar or greater.) Distinguished members comprise almost all the experts in a field. Winning an award from one of these societies is considered a huge technical accomplishment, achieved only be the top professors at top universities, and typically the subject of a press release
[15][16], UC Berkeley lists them on the same page as Nobel prize winners
[17], and so on. The societies are mentioned often in the trade press, a reliable source.
[18][19][20] and many more. Circuits and Systems in notable for sure, and I suspect the others as well.
LouScheffer (
talk)
17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you all for your polite questions. I've had one of these pages on my watchlist for years, tagged with multiple problems that have never been addressed. Nearly all the articles on IEEE Societies are referenced from
WP:primary sources alone, and they make no claims to any grounds of notability. A lot of them are
just directories e.g. lists of publications, past officers or conferences, which are of very little or no encyclopedic value.
By all means add citations from third-party sources to prove notability for each society according to
WP:ORG, and we will all be happy.
I see use of
User:Joeytje50/JWB to have this batch of
WP:PROD deletions marked as
WP:MINOR to avoid showing on watchlists an abuse of
Joeytje50's tool. Its fairly obvious it might be controversial and therefore inappropriate for PROD. Bult stuff like this should probably be raised as a WikiProject discussion first. How much distraction will this cause to a lot of people?
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a big difference between "topic not notable" and "topic not sourced". I believe that an editor, if they think something not notable, should at least try a google search to see if there are 3rd party references that are not reflected in the article. Take for example, the "Antennas and Propagation" society (I took this example since I know nothing about it personally). Do a google search ' "IEEE Antennas and Propagation" site:*.edu' (the site: portion keeps from finding all the IEEE self references in IEEE.org). You will find hundreds of references to the society, many notable (mostly awards, scholarship, standards, etc. See for example
Mahta Moghaddam Elected President of IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society , the second hit in my google search). So it's clear the society is notable, just not referenced. I fully realize the lack of reliable, non-primary sources mentioned in the article may bug you, but I think it verges on trolling to threaten to delete actually notable pages to try to force others to do more work. Much more in the spirit of Wikipedia, in my opinion, is that if your google search reveals a reliable 3rd party mention, then include it in the article. It's a little more work, but I think more public spirited.
LouScheffer (
talk)
21:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I certainly owe you all an apology for marking the edits as minor. That is optional within JWB, but I had paid not attention to that box when using the tool. Mea culpa. If I do not withdraw the PRODs, and they have not been removed by others, I must follow them up with a non-minor edit to each page stating the PROD again in the edit summary.
As for the 3rd-party citations you suggested, I am not convinced that these easily demonstrate Wikipedia notability for the organisation. Sure, each society is notable in its professional field, but for a general purpose encyclopaedia – that is not so obvious. And some of the current articles struck me as so poor that little would be lost from starting again. –
FayenaticLondon21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
As far as engineering world references not being notable, perhaps it's worthwhile to note that there are roughly as many engineers worldwide as there are in many religious subgroups, such as
Mormons. And you could easily argue that the impact of the engineer's world (such as WiFi and mobile phones) is at least on par with many religious subgroups which are covered in Wikipedia.
LouScheffer (
talk)
00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Before you go an wreak havoc with a series of articles (a little redundant, maybe) circled around a serious technological society, why not try sharpening your claws in the universe of
Category:Lists_of_fictional_characters or similar (very, very, very redundant)? There is a lot to explore, I can assure you. I find the double standards by which the entire entertainment stuff is hyped, maintained and nourished vs. the restrictions placed on real-world lemmata more and more absurd. --
Kku (
talk)
10:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your concern. I have trimmed a lot of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY from
Technical Committee on VLSI, resolving and removing four cleanup banners from the page. I'm sorry you consider that to be havoc, but IMHO
this was horrible and
this is more encyclopedic, although still lacking secondary sources and failing to state its grounds for notability under
WP:ORG. If somebody else wants to do the work on other Society pages, let them go ahead. –
FayenaticLondon11:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the pointers; I really appreciate your advice, seeing as you've been involved with CFD for so long. It always felt like an intimidating backlog to work on because of the whole
WP:CFD/W system, but I read up on it coming out of my extended absence to try to help cutdown on some admin backlogs. I notice that CFDs tend to accumulate categories as the discussion goes on, but sometimes it's not completely certain that the consensus extends towards the subsequent additions. I'll keep in mind relists for next time, though I feel for the sake of better discussion it's better to close what one can and encourage further CFDs later. What do you look for to assess those kinds of situations? bibliomaniac1517:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
You make a good point about consensus affecting later additions. If I relist and add sub-cats where I can see that different arguments might apply, I ping all the precious participants.
I seek to avoid a situation where a trial case goes one way but the wider hierarchy foreseeably goes the other way, especially if it would be a lot of work to reverse the outcome of the trial case. But if there is a clear consensus, I don't want throw it into a pot that would likely result in a mess.
Also, when closing where there is not complete consensus, I look for whether something constructive can be done even for a subset of the proposals.
Thank You.
As I'm a newbie so I don't know much.I'm seeing forward to edit more and contribute more positively on Wikipedia.
Thanks once again for a warm Welcome.:)--
ItWiki97 (
talk) 13:06, 26 April 2020
Hello
Fayenatic. Thank you for your reply. I feel sorry for what I have done. Now I know where I have gone wrong and did wrong.From next time onwards, I will comply with all the rules of Wikipedia and would surely discuss about the subject-matter on it's Discussion/Talk page before making other changes on the particular article. Also, I will see that no other Wikipedian editor is being offended by me. But Please Guide me in the future.
ItWiki97 (
talk)
20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97reply
ISTR that there is some template which tags such redirected to categories to indicate that they exist for the benefit of {{Navseasoncats}}, and thereby hopefully deter some of the over-enthusiastic deleters of category redirects.
Many thanks, FL. I dunno how I missed it at
Template:Navseasoncats#See_also. Maybe I need to take my foot off the pedal, and get my speed-reading down to more legal speeds.
It turned out that the duration of early EU Commissions was more haphazard than I thought, so I will have to dump Navseasoncats from that series and write a custom navbox. But it's handy to know for the future. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I have completed that merge now. I was waiting for you as I thought you meant you were going to edit the subcategory pages yourself. –
FayenaticLondon12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I don't know any easy way to do this; I just do it manually – although
SwiftKey has learned to suggest it. The unnecessary colons can of course be removed using the search and replace tool in the editor, if there are a lot as in that example. –
FayenaticLondon11:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It's a bit irritating to find drafts in categories. Will investigate Swiftkey.There's a
User:Cycn who is systematically emptying categories in Norway (some with 5 or more pages) and then putting them up for deletion. Could this be stopped? (Eg
this had 11 pages.)
Oculi (
talk)
14:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I too have reservations about whether all 'media' should be changed to 'mass media'. Eg 'media personalities'. The bulk rename by Marcocapelle changed the subcats of
Category:Media people by nationality but not the parents. Nearly all these country subcats are in fact container categories so maybe all 'media people' cats should be tagged as such (to stop Rathfelder creating anomalies such as the Manchester one).
Oculi (
talk)
12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi and
BrownHairedGirl: Ah, I had not realised that most had already been renamed via a full CFD. Well, in that case the few remaining might as well go ahead speedily. Shall we redirect them, FWIW? Do either of you have a tool that would create redirects for the previous set, or protect them (whether redirected or nonexistent) en masse? –
FayenaticLondon12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic, I think it is probably worth doing, because re-creations would be a nuisance. My only caveat is that these are overwhelmingly used as container categories, so I think that the risk of re-creation is low. Some editors are very cautious about creating category redirects, and they would probably rule this set out on grounds of low risk ... but I don't share those caveats, so I'd be happy to go ahead if you and
Oculi want me to. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi: I have reinstated and populated that category… but duh, it's wrong! {{media}} should not be using the phrase "mass media"; it is for Wikipedia media files. Most are images; do you know if any sound files use {{media}}? If not then all these cases using "mass media" and all of
Category:Video game media could be changed to "images". –
FayenaticLondon11:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open
local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A
motion was passed to enact a
500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
@
BD2412: As you may have realised, I come across a lot of these user drafts when updating links to categories after renaming.
I think that it would be your privilege to update the article. You did such a thorough rewrite that you should probably first merge the intervening changes to the live article
[21] into your draft, and then overwrite the live page from your updated draft. –
FayenaticLondon14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Went ahead and did it. I think the interim changes were things I had already covered, just organized differently. There is nothing particularly new.
BD2412T20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, at least the subsequent edit has not deleted the reinstated "ref name=nccih16" which you apparently deleted in error. That was the key intention of my edit, as your edit summary only referred to one citation while you were removing two. I apologise for not checking whether the adjacent sentence was supported by the citations. –
FayenaticLondon09:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually, forget meh, I only deleted one useless ref with that edit, not two. please remember that deleting a link to a named reference does not delete the ref itself. I feel better now. -
Roxy the elfin dog .wooF11:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I was using a tool which allows me to add an explanation, and all that I inserted there was "in sub-cat
Category:The Essential". I accept that this did not come out very clearly as part of the full edit summary, and I will try to write out the explanation more fully in future.
You know how you are Removing Legacy Recordings from the article you mention above, Would you be able to add the correct running time from AllMusic on the article and adding charts to the article that charted?