User talk:Timrollpickering

Due to vandalism by anonymous editors playing with the revert controls, this page may be temporarily protected at autoconfirmed users only level. If you are unable to place a message here, please do so at User talk:Timrollpickering/Temporary protection wall.

Welcome to my talk page.

Please note that I prefer to have substantial discussions about individual articles on their own talk pages rather than here, so that all editors of those articles can see them and contribute.

Please also note that I prefer conversations to be in one place. I will reply to comments where they are left and, if necessary, transfer comments back to the original talk page where the conversation was initiated.

To leave a new message click here.

The Struggle group affiliation

The Struggle Pakistan Group is not affiliated to International Marxist Tendency. Please correct your text in the Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_Pakistan

I corrected with proper reference, but you did an undo. Kindly, redo the updated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.100.223 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Read the article history correctly. I did not make the revert - the reversion returned to my last edit which was to remove a deleted category. Take it up with the reverter. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hanoi FC

Hello, move category back to Category:Hanoi FC, those categories needs to match their main article title which is Hanoi FC, they do not use sponsorship name "T&T" for like two years anymore so there is nothing to really discuss there. I thought that the articles are automatically moved to correct categories by the bots after the category is renamed, but I can do it myself if thats not the case. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a bot that monitors the redirects but it's for mopping up individual entries placed in the wrong category, not for performing mass moves out of process (it also won't touch a moved category for a week precisely to allow such moves to be easily undone). Try WP:CFDS for a category move. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

14 years of adminship

Wishing Timrollpickering a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia CFD

Congratulations with your 14th anniversary! Just for info, I've reverted my closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_15#Category:Ethnic_groups_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia, feel free to close it yourself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

1937 in Siam etc

Hi Tim

What's all that[1] about?

Why create an obscure and hard-to maintain kludge when the simple solution is to have the decades categories named in the same way as the years? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's to solve the problem of a redirect being populated with no easy way to clear it. The preferable way would be to ban this sort of template as it's hard to adapt in such circumstances but for now a runaround is needed. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Year category redirects. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

2016 Senate electoral fraud

Tim they are all simple (but important) facts, so cannot be dismissed simply as a 'point of view'. I am happy to explain the technical details if you want. I also tried to raise this on the Derryn Hinch talk page. Oz freediver (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You have been trying to post this on multiple articles on and off over the last three years (usually without any refs to WP:RSes) and the link on your user page is to a site headlining articles on the matter suggesting an attempt to use Wikipedia as part of a campaign. Only put things in when they've covered by reliable mainstream sources. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying and succeeding Tim, because it is an important issue. Derryn Hinch was at the very centre of the 2016 electoral fraud controversy and Australia's ongoing constitutional crisis. It halved the length of his term in parliament. Surely that is due and warranted an explanation on his wikipedia page? Just because a topic is controversial and is a great wrong does not mean it is undue or unwarranted, and I note that this is the second excuse you have given for the same action. I also note you are declining to discuss the matter on the Derryn Hinch talk page, even though you state here that it is your preference to do so and I directed you to it. Oz freediver (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have put it back in with several reliable sources. As far as I can tell that was the only one of your complaints that was legitimate, though I already had a link to the other wikipedia article that gives all the details. Regarding your comments about it being undue or RGW, you appear to still be claiming that what I post is an opinion, and a minority one at that. You are wrong on both counts. These are all simple facts that no-one is disputing. You may also be claiming that it is insignificant, but that would also be a hard position to maintain, given both the gravity and the controversy surrounding these events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

First off all the concerns raised are legitimate. Just because you think there is some great constitutional crisis doesn't mean that there is one, nor that this is an important matter to include in articles. Some of your refs are to background pieces, which is synthesis, or to subscriber only websites or go straight through to the main page. Of the ones that cover this, they don't show any great constitutional crisis, just a squabble on allocation methods, with Hinch himself reported as saying "it's a Senate vote – not a constitutional issue". Your own site says:

Wikipedia also followed suit in not mentioning key details, and it took some effort by the author to get Wikipedia to acknowledge details of the problem and its history, such as the broken bipartisan senate resolutions.

In other words you have been fighting to get this in as part of a personal political campaign. That is the definition of WP:POINT. See if other editors put it back rather than repeatedly trying to force it in all over the place. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)