User talk:Fish and karate

Please place your comments at the bottom of the talk page. Make sure you sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~

New to Wikipedia? - hello! See Wikipedia:Welcome, Wikipedia:Help, and Wikipedia:My first article for useful advice to get you started. If those don't help you, then by all means please do come back and ask me your question(s).

Can't edit my talk page archives? If there is anything (chiefly privacy stuff) you would like removing or amending, let me know below or by email. If you are unsure whether you want everyone seeing your message, don't post it here - again, email me.

Barnstar

	Typo Barnstar
	Oh please don't take my yak page access away! Sorry, just couldn't resist; that typo is hysterical! I know you corrected it seconds later. Sometimes our fingers do the most hysterical things :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Never edit on a phone without checking you haven’t made an autocorrect rotor. Fish+Karate 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing urgent, just a note here rather than on the Floc admin page where it might seem like attention-getting

Just a comment, because I otherwise often find myself agreeing with you. Attention-seeking is a dangerous label, surely? It's semantic valency ranges from teachers who must attract the attention of distracted students (the political reflex is making a stand when no one else will: like a (Jewish: it matters in this context) mentor of mine who stopped a tradition of humiliating new boys in a Protestant prestigious college back in the 30s by stepping in to protest the custom one day. His authority came from his known gentleness of character, his excellence at sports and intellectual brilliance. I'm sure some of the bullies would have quipped: 'Ah fuck him, always grandstanding on 'ethics' to get attention), down to those who will do anything to catch the public eye.Those who are in the limelight and exercise executive powers invisible to most of us, often deride critics as trying to grab people's attention, something they themselves base their careers on. When, from within the Republican party ranks, Justin Amash took a stand against Trump, it was summarily dismissed as attention-seeking. In sum, almost every act act lends itself to interpretation as drawing attention, from a baby crying, a newspaper boy's street shouting, a farmer's alerting neighbours to an incipient bushfire, to a victim of robbery yelling 'thief', whatever the distinct and singular impulses that lead to it (unknown to us generally), can be put down as 'attention-seeking'. So I don't think one should attribute that motive to anyone unless there is a sustained prior record of exhibitionism. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani, I will have to re-read this a couple of times, give me a few minutes. Fish+Karate 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, unlike in private work, I don't review and make stylistic revisions to what I write off the top of my head, and readers have good reason to complain. Sorry. Just, as usual, too pressed for time to be concise. No need to reply. We're all busy, or enjoying well-deserved holidays. CheersNishidani (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Telugu cinema

Hi this mobile IP address 182.18.177.106 and 115.97.181.112 is vandalizing the page by adding "Telugu cinema is ranked second based on box office ranking" there is no such thing as ranking in Indian cinema article. It is sheer pluff and fan pov. The editor is using abusive language in mobile edit summaries. Please do the needful temporary semi protection and pls block the IP.Rvls (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rvls: the IP address has been blocked and there has been no vandalism in 6 hours. If it resumes please let me know or go back to RFPP. Thanks, Fish+Karate 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Declined PP request

In regard to the note you left me about improper rollback use, just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I noticed in my RPP request (which I made using Twinkle), I selected the wrong item from the dropdown. Instead of vandalism, I intended to choose "disruptive editing". It may have seemed like a content dispute on the surface, but a closer look reveals a bit more.

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

All three edits are from the same IP range with the last octet changing, and it's quite clear they are ignoring/deleting the hidden text in the process (the act of deleting and even rephrasing in one case is a clear indication they see it). The first two diffs were immediately reverted by another editor, and I walked in on the third. Second, I realize my rollback's edit summary could have been better. In hindsight, labeling my revert as "rvv" was incorrect. A more appropriate edit summary would have been "rv disruptive edit" or even better:

"This field is for the model, not the type. See Template:Infobox roller coaster and this article's talk page for more info"

...and followed that up with posting an explanation on the talk page. I'm usually pretty good about that, especially in situations that look like possible misunderstandings by the offending IP (this one didn't at first, but I see it now). Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: No problem. Bear in mind the IP editor in question is trying to help improve the article. I get that they may not be doing it in the right way, and the edit they want to make may not actually improve the article, but they're not doing this to spite you, and just undoing their edits without a reasonable explanation isn't going to help them learn how to edit better. Save the "rvv" stuff for actual vandal edits, not good faith editing that just happens to be of low quality. Fish+Karate 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice, and yes, this was an anomaly and not a common occurrence. I usually follow the necessary protocols to try to reach out and explain before assuming the disruptive behavior is intentional. I think when you grow accustomed to seeing how it pans out 9 out of 10 times (i.e. the tendency for IPs to ignore you right up until they're blocked), a lax in good judgement is bound to occur from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Template: Infoshops

Thanks for your closing summary about deleting the Infoshops template. To be honest, I was expecting this to be closed as no consensus, and I'm a bit confused by your reasoning about there being a majority since there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either." I said keep and I didn't see very much to reply to in terms of an argument for deletion, just various statements which fail WP:NOTDUPE. Further, I haven't seen any suggestions on how to improve the template, which is a wasted opportunity.

I'd also like more clarity here if possible on why any template needs to pass all five criteria, since the policy states: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines." Indeed, the reason people were mentioning other templates is because very few templates do satisfy all five criteria and I'm not sure how else that could be demonstrated.

Regarding 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent) - well I think they do and the relevant literature eg Atton, Dodge, Lacey and Munson on Infoshop does link these projects together. Further, there are networks in existence for example the UK social centre network, there's reliable sources for that at Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom.

Regarding 5, (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the 'See also' sections of the articles) well no you probably wouldn't link all the projects in a See also section, there's too many, but you would link the ones in the same country then the navbox provides a useful navigation to other projects. I don't know how many navboxes this guideline is actually true of? It's certainly not true of the other template on the mother page ... which somehow manages to link Radical cheerleading and Somatherapy.

I also see some procedural irregularities here but that can be mentioned at review if necessary. Thanks for any answer, I see a note at the top of this page saying you aren't around much so I'll move forward if I don't hear back from you in a week or so. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Hi, thanks for your in-depth comments, I will respond on Monday or Tuesday if that’s ok. I’m a bit hectic this weekend. Fish+Karate 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Mujinga:, I've had chance to read your comment properly and have taken the time to go back and re-look at my close of this deletion discussion. I do remain happy that I weighted the strength of the arguments reasonably and such a closure was within the realms of administrator judgement. Much of the information you give above was not presented at the TFD discussion, this isn't the place to remake the argument, if you want to take this to DRV - while I would imagine my decision would be upheld - I'd have no objections, it is important that the decisions we all make on Wikipedia are held to account when required. If there are procedural irregularities please let me know what these are so I can address them; I don't frequently close TFD discussions, I was helping out clearing some backlog from WP:RFCL, and this discussion had been awaiting closure for quite some time. Thank you also for immediately undoing your inappropriate use of the rollback tool ([1]). Fish+Karate 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, unfortunately I was asking clarity on your decision not whether you were happy with it. Let me try again. As I understand it, you deleted this template since you found the arguments that it "failed" criteria 3 and 5 compelling, which would (I'm guessing here) mean that it "passes" criteria 1,2 and 4. Since "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines" perhaps you can see now why I am asking for clarity, since more guidelines were being followed than not (I'm still not convinced by the "fails"). This would be useful to know since I make navboxes myself and now I am genuinely confused on what makes a good template, since 3 seems pretty subjective (thanks to "reasonable") and a hard reading of 5 would delete almost all templates. Mujinga (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The arguments that it failed criterion 3 and criterion 5 were compelling. This does not mean it therefore passed criteria 1, 2 and/or 4, that is not meant to be implied; I just looked at the arguments provided and assessed a close based on those. Any inferences about the template outside of the points mentioned in my closing comment were not intentional, I just closed the discussion based on the contents of the discussion. I didn't assess the template myself, the role of the closer is to gauge consensus based on policy, not to impose their own view. Fish+Karate 10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the further answer, sadly I'm starting to see how this works now. Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC close - opinion requested

Hi there. I spotted you closing a few RFCs, and I was wondering if you could be an uninvolved admin to give my proposed close of an RFC a once-over? The RFC in question is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_suicidal_disclaimer_at_Suicide, and my proposed close, and the rationale, is at User:Steven_Crossin/RFC_close#Summary/Close. Have considered the close for some time, but I'd just like a second opinion if you wouldn't mind? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin: Sure, I'll have a look now. Fish+Karate 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin: I think your closure is an accurate summation of the discussions as it stands. There's a consensus to do something but not what that something is, and the Doc James line is probably the least-opposed option. While I'm not 100% sure the discussion has fully drawn to a close yet, it's definitely tailing off (only a handful of comments in the past 3 days, and all of them in the 'discussion' section). I think the close is fine to implement, very well done for being willing to pick it up. Fish+Karate 09:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and taking the time to review my proposed close. Yeah, that was my overall thoughts, agreement to do something, no rock solid consensus on what to do, but Doc James version is the preferred by most considering the objections. I decided to close this one because, well, someone's gotta. If I can give a reasoned close in line with consensus, why shouldn't I, I figure. But wanted a 2nd opinion first on this one, just in case. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Infoshops

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infoshops. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mujinga (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Crewed submersibles & Category:Manned submersibles

Hello, Fish and karate,

You can not move a category like you would move an article because each page in the category needs to be reassigned or it still appears in the original category that is now a redirect. That is why we let the bots handle this in CfD because it is such a chore to do this manually, especially if there are dozens of pages in the old category to reassign. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks Liz. I don’t usually do CFDs and thought from the guidance that the bot would automatically fix the category redirects, as this isn’t the case could you let me know how I get the bot to sort it, or point me in the right direction? Thanks. Fish+Karate 18:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Use WP:CFD/W which is the bots instruction page. If you need help post in the NAC section and some of the regular usually help out quite quickly. --Trialpears (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

They all appear to have been sorted (thanks to Mfb and Spiderjerky for doing all the moves). Liz, do the old empty categories need to be deleted or should they be left as redirects? Fish+Karate 08:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

{{merging}} protection

I just was wondering why you template protected {{merging}}, it is by no means a high risk template with currently just one actual use at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters added in 2018. Would you mind unprotecting or semi protecting it instead? --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. It would have been due to a request at RFPP. Perhaps it was used more back then? Fish+Karate 07:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please adjust page protection

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

• Template:Merging‎

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Dropped to semi protection. Fish+Karate 08:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Disregarding !votes by banned users

I was just wondering whether disregarding any !votes by banned users is accepted practice when closing a discussion as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#"Manned" renaming. While it's a no-brainer when socking is involved I don't find it obvious that it's appropriate when an experienced editor gets banned for harrasment/incivility which was the case here. The !vote was well considered and cast in good faith which doesn't change because of a block. This is by no means intended as a gotcha moment; I'm just trying to learn more and become a better closer. I believe I would have closed it in the same way, but more from giving less weight to the no need comment since it didn't express any reason why the status quo was preferable to the proposal from giving higher weight to the support side supported by GNL, RfC and consistency while the strongest argument from the opposition was COMMONNAME. --Trialpears (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The banned user's vote was part but not all of the rationale for the closure, I did also reference the consistency/precedent set. Discounting a banned (not temporarily blocked - indefinitely banned for serious harassment and abuse) user's votes (obviously assuming the vote was made before they were banned) is fairly common practice, and I see no problem in taking away their right to have a say in proceedings on Wikipedia, they did that themselves through their actions. Fish+Karate 08:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I haven't encountered this situation before and was uncertain how it's handled in practice. I agree that there's no problem with taking away their right to influence the discussion, but the potential problem would be in taking away a !vote that is just as likely to reflect the greater community opinion as any other. Sorry to bother you so much recently, but this was quite helpful for me. --Trialpears (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to answer questions as best I can. Never apologise for asking! Fish+Karate 18:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Check your email! :-)

Hello, Fish and karate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello young Karate

Karate withdrew from ArbCom candidacy? Sad! Enough good candidates now, really? Darwinfish is considering running together with evil twin, two in one slot. For balance good/evil! darwin^fish 18:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC).

Hi boss. Naturally if you run you will have my goat vote. Fish+Karate 18:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hey, regardless of how often we agree or disagree about stuff, thanks for volunteering; I know it came from an honorable desire to help. Trust me, you'll be happy you withdrew.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic History

Hi Fish+Karate! I was curious if you had any questions or feedback on my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. If you still have some time and interest in the topic, I would really appreciate your feedback. Just a reminder that I have a COI: I'm here on behalf of Mayo Clinic. Best! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Audrey at Mayo Clinic: Hi Audrey, just to note I have not forgotten about you, it’s just been a bit hectic. I will try and look at this ASAP for you. Regards, Fish+Karate 21:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem! I completely understand. Thank you! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent ACE guide

Hi Fish and karate, I would like to thank you for the time and work invested into User:Fish_and_karate/ACE19, resulting in a very helpful guide for the upcoming elections. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought so too.... ! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! Fish+Karate 21:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)