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.
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at
WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An
RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to
TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to
be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how
IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed
at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised
COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the
COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a
motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
I was on a Wikipedia category page looking at its title when I wondered if a project category namespace was ever considered (separating the content category namespace from the project one. Even possible?). Thought I'd ask you as if anyone would know it would be you :)
Gonnym (
talk)
13:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I understand the question? If you mean a separate category space for non-articles, I think they've kinda been trying to use Meta for that, but it's slow in implementation/development. I think it's partially an overhead issue. kinda like why they don't allow cross-site transclusion.
One interesting example though, did you know that if you create your user page on meta, it'll show on all the other wikimedia sites as your userpage if you don't already have one there?
Anyway, I guess the answer is I dunno, though I have read that they are apparently starting to shy away from adding more namespaces.
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. LizRead!Talk!15:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashli was a traitor who attempted to over throw the government by going against the democratic election results. She stopped being a protester the moment she stepped foot into the capitol. There is no need to be neutral when the facts are she stormed the capitol, entered it illegally and died after being told multiple times to retreat. Instead of retreating she decided to try jumping through a window which would put her in arms reach of politicians she was seeking. I believe calling her a protester is re-writing history and extremely irresponsible.
An
RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for
G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating
dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (
T287380)
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. LizRead!Talk!16:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see that you have done most of the work already, undeleting and repopulating the subcats. I will reinstate the top category members which I removed. –
FayenaticLondon06:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Bohemianroots: there may not be sufficient information to justify a standalone article. I found a podcast interview at
[2] but have not listened to it.
Looks like things are resolved but with bots, you never know when they will recreate a page. I've been trying to find a way to turn off the Version 1.0 bot from updating reports for defunct WikiProjects but it seems once you turn that thing on, it doesn't stop even if there are 0 daily updates for years and years. LizRead!Talk!23:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I went with {{
DBR footer}} to match the current naming convention. All future edits should use the new template (currently blank) instead of explicitly adding the category.
Legoktm (
talk)
19:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Userscript for moving files
I noticed you move files manually and update the filenames in articles manually as well. As updating filenames is a drag I created
LuckyRename some time ago, you may want to give it a try. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me)
12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you. My edits to file pages are probably mostly recategorising rather than moving them, but I'll try to remember this in case of need. –
FayenaticLondon21:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums longer than 70 minutes 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.
Hey there, I closed this discussion, but I am not sure what actions there are to take about this, if any. Is there maybe a category guideline page where the consensus from this CFD could be slipped in, maybe? bibliomaniac1503:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)reply
A
discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A
RfC on the next steps after the trial of
pending changes on
TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the
mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of
the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at
this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks Fay! The thing is, Category:Islamophobia should be the top cat for all those sub-cats related to this whole topic - something like in case of Category:Antisemitism. Actually, these two phenomenons - Islamophobia and Antisemitism - are related in their identical phenomenology, and subsequently in academic approach, so I used our categorization of Antisemitism as a model. So, basically Islamophobia is a "parent" cat for both Ant-Muslim and Anti-Islam (also many other, of course), so I used same explanation that we use in Antisemitism - describing it by using either individual categories explanations:
Anti-Islam (and Anti-Judaism for that matter) is described as 1, 2, 3; Anti-Muslim (and Anti-Jewish) as 4, 5, 6; and their parent category Islamophobia (and Antisemitism) is described as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I am guessing, in such cases we make parent cats like these (top cats for particular topics) into container, perhaps, but again, I preferred cat Antisemitism, because in both cases there are some articles that can only fit into Islamophobia (and Antisemitism) category, such as, say, scholarship or book regarding this (broader) phenomenon, and so on. Anyhow, I am open for suggestions if anyone would like to chip in an idea. Thanks, and take care.--
౪ Santa ౪99°16:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Another nuance, that could be used to clarify whole thing even further: Jew/Muslim is a person who goes to synagogue/mosque, but Jew/Muslim can be atheist and main ethnic group in Israel/some-Balkan-country or minority ethnic group in other countries; Antisemitism and Islamophobia include them and distinguish between both strains of negative sentiments directed at them - someone could conclude that we should, then, stack them all together under Islamophobia perhaps, however, I can't see why because we use every reasonably convenient opportunity to split categories into sub-categories, and this one certainly qualifies.--
౪ Santa ౪99°16:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Following
an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain
high-risk templates.
Following
a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A
motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in
the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the
Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions
are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee
encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors
have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to
add themselves to the mentor list.
The
community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Hello, in July you blanked a draft containing proposed changes to an article in my userspace:
User:WWB_Too/Robert_Rubin. You had said it "seems to be no longer required" per the Rubin talk page, but I'm not sure what might have given you this impression. I am still proposing edits to that article and so intend to revert your edit, but first decided I would give you a heads up in case there's anything you'd like to discuss. Thanks,
WWB Too (
Talk ·
COI)
16:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
WWB Too: Thanks very much for asking.
WP:COPYARTICLE says "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." I believe that covers user copies of articles which are re-drafts for discussion, e.g. where a COI has been declared.
It's fine by me for you to reinstate the page as a place to propose further updates. All that I would suggest is that when you & other editors have concluded the ensuing discussion of your re-draft, you then blank it again until such time as it may yet again be required in the future. This complies with COPYARTICLE, and avoids the need for admins to check backlinks when moving categories/other pages linked from that draft. –
FayenaticLondon18:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I appreciate that. Draft is now temporarily restored. Also I'll admit, for the last decade I have kept drafts of past COI projects in my userspace, but now that I'm aware of WP:COPYARTICLE I think the best thing would be for me to redirect those drafts to the live articles.
WWB Too (
Talk ·
COI)
14:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I oppose it while the task force has its current name. I don't accept your denial that there is currently a Canon law task force. But if the task force is renamed following RM process, then the categories can all follow speedily.
Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of moths of the United States, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can
request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of moths of Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can
request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of moths of Brazil, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can
request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I notice that you correct quite a few category redirects when categories get moved or deleted which is great. I'd like to ask you, when you are making these category redirect corrections, could you also check on the category talk page? Because when category talk pages that have redirects end up on the
Broken redirect list, they usually just get deleted rather than corrected. I correct them when I see them but I'm not the only admin who patrols the list. Thank you! LizRead!Talk!01:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Point taken, Liz. In that case I left one half done last thing at night, pending a second move by the bot, and intended to check it in the morning. But I recognise that meanwhile it then came up on your work list, so you fixed it instead – thanks. No doubt there have been others that I overlooked. I'll try to pick them up more consistently. –
FayenaticLondon06:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Template script
Good evening. I was trying to see if I could close
this discussion based on your instructions for editing the templates. Now, for example in
Template:WikiProject_Bangladesh_Premier_League, I do not see an ATTENTIONCAT parameter, but I do see an ASSESSMENTCAT. I guess the latter is what you intended in your instructions, but I'd rather first check with you before making a mess based on a wrong guess.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: By default, pages needing attention are categorised in "PROJECT articles needing attention", but where this needs to be overridden, the parameter to use is ATTENTION_CAT. It will need to be added where it is not already in the project template. See
Template:WPBannerMeta. –
FayenaticLondon08:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:List of moths of China, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can
request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I noticed that you recently changed some empty "Year in Mexico" categories into category redirects. There are bunch that are due to be deleted tomorrow that you can find in
Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion if you think it would be better to change them into redirects rather than delete them. Thanks, and I hope you are well! LizRead!Talk!01:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Phase 2 of the 2021
RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues
found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
@
GiantSnowman: where Babydoll replaced e.g. People from Toxteth with Cricketers from Liverpool, and they were also already in English cricketers, then I thought it was appropriate to (i) remove English cricketers and (ii) reinstate People from Toxteth.
Ah, I see from your edit summaries that this is again the thing you told me above at
#Footballer nationality categories about non-diffusing national occupational categories. Sorry, I forgot that rule; like other non-diffusion rules, it is not intuitive. Is it meant to apply only to sportspeople, or to all occupational categories? Also, where is it written, or is it an undocumented consensus? –
FayenaticLondon16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Even my original edits (which you reverted) had left all the biographies within both those hierarchies. Of course a person should be in both of those hierarchies; the only question is whether or when
Category:Nationality profession may be diffused. Your edit summaries referred to "non-diffusing", but where is it stated that e.g.
Category:Cricketers from Liverpool is a non-diffusing subcat of its grandparent
Category:English cricketers?
As for "It applies to all categories", this alleged non-diffusing rule evidently does not apply to some other professions e.g.
Category:English politicians or
Category:English male actors, within which the biography articles are mainly diffused by locality, century etc.
Well, I was made an admin in 2012 mainly to work on
WP:categories for discussion, and for some periods I was doing practically all the admin at CFD for months or years at a time by myself; and I don't remember coming across this rule before this year. If it was established by consensus, whether at CFD or by RfC, it ought to have been documented at at least one of
WP:PEOPLECAT or
WP:DIFFUSE, but there is no mention of it there.
You have evidently been enforcing it for at least a year and a half, and perhaps a great deal longer, but you can't tell me where it came from. You claim that "it is clearly a Wikipedia-wide thing", but in practice it clearly is not being applied to all occupations.
Perhaps Oculi's observation does point up the need for the rule, especially for sportspeople, as so many sportspeople work as expatriates. In other words, there are footballers from Liverpool who are not English, and therefore, English footballers should not be diffused by location.
But I don't see the case for applying it to other occupations such as writers.
My concern is that we have many, many examples of people like
Pascal Jansen - Dutch national but born in London. Conflating 'X from Y' and 'Z footballers' does not work. More so in sports, but for all professions.
GiantSnowman14:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for belatedly coming up with a rationale, but Oculi beat you to it. I neither know nor care who Pascal Jensen is; there are plenty of notable expatriate sportspeople who do have articles in English Wikipedia. Can we now move on to what we will do to seek consensus about this rule and document its scope? or first address whether we may diffuse English cricketers by era? –
FayenaticLondon17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)reply
About the "something I made up", it does appear that way from your conversation with
Rathfelder[8][9] on the day that you tagged
English footballers (30 March 2020),
[10] as your justification for it on his talk page was
WP:COMMONSENSE.
I found an earlier "non-diffusing" banner on Icelandic footballers from 2017,
[11] but that was to say that international and expatriate footballers are non-diffusing – you did not mention the equivalent sub-cats when you tagged the English category, so you don't appear to have been following that as a precedent.
So: you, Oculi and I seem to be in agreement that footballers by town/city should not be diffusing sub-categories of footballers by nationality, and this might be applied more widely among sportspeople; but it seems that this has not been documented anywhere other than
English footballers. Have you seen it being applied to other nationalities of footballers?
Moreover, I can't find any hint of a general rule for other occupations, and I don't consider it desirable to start one. I don't think expatriates will be as common among other occupations that have hierarchies within
Category:People by occupation and city.
it seems obvious to me that many editors find non-diffusing categories very confusing. We should avoid them unless the benefit is very clear as they often dont work. I also think its easy to get too obsessive about nationality. People who migrate may change their nationality, but this is rarely noted in the articles.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Fooian fooers
I understand that the Nationality parameter for the
Collectivity of Saint Martin will need to be updated from Saint Martin to Saint Martinois.
Template:Fooian fooers is only linked to four categories: Category:Saint Martin sports coaches, Category:Saint Martin educators, Category:Saint Martin women in politics and Category:Saint Martin women by occupation. However, I don't understand the purpose of the template, could you explain it in a couple of sentences, or should I not worry too much? Should some of the Northern Irish categories I have just nominated use
Template:Fooers from Northern Ireland, which they currently don't?
TSventon (
talk)
14:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
TSventon: The purpose of the template is to provide easy navigation up multiple levels of the parent category hierarchies. You can see it in use at
Category:Saint Martin educators; if you click on the "People" link within it there, it currently takes you to the old name
Category:Saint Martin people which is currently a redirect.
I could tweak {{Fooian fooers}} to resolve a category redirect, but am not sure that that would be helpful.
For all the Saint Martin categories I think it would be better to paste the tailored version from
Category:Saint Martin politicians which has been tweaked by
Place Clichy to include an extra layer for France/French. I think
BrownHairedGirl was once testing an additional parameter ParentNationality in "Fooian fooers", but this was not implemented after all.
Thank you, hopefully that will make sense once the full discussion is closed. I did the nomination, so I don't think I can close it. I have a list of speedy nominations ready for when it is closed.
TSventon (
talk)
01:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for closing the discussion and moving the society nomination, I have nominated the people sub-cats. Wouldn't I need to be an admin to close CfD speedy discussions? I haven't updated Fooian fooers yet.
TSventon (
talk)
23:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
TSventon: non-admins are generally welcome to close full CFD discussions, see
WP:NAC. Just avoid closing discussions where you were
WP:INVOLVED. If the result is rename / merge /delete, and there are more than a few members (so that it's worth using the bot), then list it at
WT:CFDW for an admin to copy to the protected page.
WP:CFDAI is the full info about closing CFD discussions. As for speedy discussions, sure, leave those to admins. –
FayenaticLondon08:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)reply
User:Brancrandran was blocked as a sockpuppet and many of his categories were deleted via CSD G5 although some were not empty (I myself have deleted the empty ones). However,
WP:BANREVERT states that
Since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned user. Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme should be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright.
I expect the nonempty categories will show up on
Special:WantedCategories when it next updates on November 10, 2021 and I wanted to check in with another admin before taking action. I'd like to restore those categories that were deleted before they were emptied. Now that I'm familiar with the policy stated above, I untag nonempty categories I see tagged for G5 deletion when I see them in a Speedy Deletion category unless there are a small number of pages in the category (say, 6 or fewer) where I can easily remove the pages from the category. I understand there are tools that exist that can handle mass removal of pages from a category but I am not familiar with them. What do you think? LizRead!Talk!01:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I've been undeleting the ones with three or more members, so that they can be nominated for deletion, or kept if valid and useful – I undeleted a couple of his "essayists" categories which are small but fine.
WP:Cat-a-lot may be the tool that you are referring to, but when I come to the deleted LGBT categories with one or two members, I've been recategorising those pages manually. –
FayenaticLondon09:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I would be happy to help once there is a plan. Northern Irish Marxist writers includes 2 articles, neither of which mention Marx, so it probably could be deleted, but Brancrandran created around 400 extant categories, so I don't think 400 full CfD discussions would be a good idea.
TSventon (
talk)
16:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the advice. Most of the sockpuppet cases I have run into at the CSD categories have been editors who created articles or drafts, it's the first time I've run into a sockpuppet who focused on creating a category structure. I think I have looked into
WP:Cat-a-lot before but the thing about tools & scripts on Wikipedia is that there are a handful you rely on to do what you need to do and others that are unfamiliar seem complicated and clumsy. I guess it's just a learning curve thing. LizRead!Talk!06:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Nathan Edmondson
Hi. My attempts to get others to help regarding an editor blanking content from the Nathan Edmondson article, and refusing to discuss the matter, have only been slightly successful. I've contacted three other admins, and put messages on the WikiComics Project talk page, and only two other editors have so far responded. Since you've participated in disputes regarding comics articles before, can you offer your views in the discussions? My analysis of the blanking, which I did at the request of another editor who alerted me to the problem, is
here. The subsequent RfC began
here. Thanks.
Nightscream (
talk)
18:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)reply
There are some dubious edits on this by someone who claims in an edit summary to be its secretary, reinstated by someone else who has been dormant for about 6 years. (I see you PROD'ed it a few years ago.)
Oculi (
talk)
12:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I was looking at the Wanted Categories list and there is this category that you deleted that still has close to 2500 pages in it. Does it just take a while for the bot to reassign all of the pages to a different category? There is also
Category:Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows which was deleted but still has over 12,000 pages in it. I don't close discussions at
CFD so I'm not sure how speedy the bot is at recategorizing pages. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!06:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)reply
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can
request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
It always feels strange when Twinkle posts these notices to long-standing, active editors. Of course, you can restore it if you want to return to working on it. LizRead!Talk!22:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello Fayenatic, I were updated content in an article,
Mukhtar Sahota to update his latest release but sadly you had removed almost all his content. This page was never touched since 2009 but i were start editing and i were hesitant that what if i messed it up so avoided it.
Here are the few references for his biography:
15 year old website [1][2][3][4][5]
so please reinstate it.
Praveen Paliwal (
talk)
01:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Praveen Paliwal: feel free to write a biography based on the citations that you have found.
Do you happen to know how it was that the Wikipedia biography was exactly the same as
https://www.mukhtarsahota.com/bio? i.e. which came first, or which was copied from the other?
Hello Fayenatic,
This is regarding
Mukhtar Sahota page, I'm pretty sure biography write-up on Wikipedia was original and his website was come live around in 2013 and biography was took from WP by his managing team.
So can i undo those deletions or i have to edit/write that whole page again?
and more thing that, Is this kind deletion can happen again?
Praveen Paliwal (
talk)
17:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Praveen Paliwal: thank you. In that case you can reinstate some of the page, and we do not need to worry about
WP:COPYVIO from the official site. However, you should only reinstate the statements that are supported by the citations which you are going to add. Moreover, the sentences that were copied from the citations – e.g. from the 15-year old biography – need to be rewritten. Any statements that appear to have been contributed from personal knowledge, rather than from citations, must not be reinstated.
In practice I think you will need to rewrite the biography one part at a time, adding the citations one by one as you rewrite the facts that are based on them, rather than undoing the deletion. –
FayenaticLondon20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)reply
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
In each case there's a person categorised as African-American who may or may not be better categorised as African, but there are slightly different complexities in each case. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
20:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Arms & Hearts: Sorry, I don't feel I have time to discuss those cases.
But can we clarify here whether a third category is needed for people of African descent e.g. Black British people (neither African people, nor African Americans) killed by US cops? The closer of
the CFD seems to have found consensus to create one. However, you made a comment near the end that implies there are currently no articles on such cases.
Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure what adding those words to the close would necessarily do, but I added a short addendum that hopefully clarifies that the scope of the close was for that particular discussion only. To
User:Arms & Hearts, my comment at the end of my close was only regarding the no consensus towards the proposed target name for that specific discussion, but it doesn't mean that such a category can never be created. If a need is found to create that category (or something filling that role), it could possibly be grounds for a new discussion. bibliomaniac1519:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit confused as to what's happened here and think people may be speaking at cross purposes, but I don't think there's anything that needs to be done. The original close referred to a new category for people of African descent, when really the consensus was probably for new category for African people, and that's what's been acted upon. This requires fudging the consensus a bit by ascribing more weight to my argument and
Ezlev's, but is really the only option: there aren't any articles that would go in a category for people of African descent (i.e. black people who are neither African nor African-American). So to answer Fayenatic London's original question: no, there's no need for a third category.
Bibliomaniac15's close, if it needed revising, needed to say "African people" instead of "people of African descent", but the revision that's been made doesn't do any harm (there may indeed one day be articles to populate a third category), nor did the prior wording, really. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
19:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (
T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (
T293866)
The already authorized standard
discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the
Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed,
have been made permanent.
Hey FL, just letting you know I moved the list of corporte mergers article over to the draftsapce, since I think it is better there while I am buliding it out. Thanks for setting it up initially. (and I of course welcome any help you can give over there). Best,
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
01:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Cheers, best wishes too you. Presumably you'll be adding columns for country, size, date and predecessor companies, and making it a sortable table?
I use
User:DannyS712/Cat links.js to make such lists. As you can see above (lists of moths in...), I use this now and then before deleting categories where there is potential for a useful list. Glad that this one was taken up, but I don't think I'll have time to join you in the hard labour (labor!). –
FayenaticLondon07:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Categories
Hello, Fayenatic london,
You restored some categories (like
Category:University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences faculty) that were then immediately deleted. Did you intend to restore them for good? I think that the CSD tag was left on them so they showed up in the speedy deletion categories as if they were intended to be deleted. I was looking over the Deletion log and deleted categories always catch my eye so thought I'd check in with you in case you wanted them permanently restored. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!19:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Golly,
user:Fastily lives up to the name! I had to undelete one repeatedly – excuse me reverting your tag, it was the only way to remove it quickly enough for the page not to be instantly deleted again.
A
recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove
Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with
Edit Filter Manager, choose to
self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the
Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its
talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they
develop over time. You may like to take a look at the
grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now
create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to
Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to
create articles yourself without posting a request to
Articles for creation.
All your recent edits removing disease-related deaths categories have a redlink to the discussion where consensus was built. (
t ·
c) buidhe23:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I have no idea. An experienced wikipedia editor can easily find the intended page, but one with less advanced skills perhaps not. (
t ·
c) buidhe23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
Qwerfjkltalk15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
Qwerfjkltalk16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi Fayenatic london! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~