User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 21: Difference between revisions
→RfC about lists of schools: new section |
hiya, noticed you deleted a page called Defastenism, i think it should not have been deleted, it was a significant art movement at least as significant as impressionism was in France in its day. it had notable members such as Gary Farrelly, David McDermott, Marina Guinness and Padraic Moore but the actual wikipedia page that was there didnt do it justice. would reccommend leaving it there i.e. restoring it, as in my view it's a kind of cultural vandalism to delete it. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{archive box|auto=long}} |
{{archive box|auto=long}} |
||
{{parabr}} |
{{parabr}} |
||
hiya, noticed you deleted a page called Defastenism, i think it should not have been deleted, it was a significant art movement at least as significant as impressionism was in France in its day. it had notable members such as Gary Farrelly, David McDermott, Marina Guinness and Padraic Moore but the actual wikipedia page that was there didnt do it justice. would reccommend leaving it there i.e. restoring it, as in my view it's a kind of cultural vandalism to delete it. |
|||
== Raoul Bhatt == |
== Raoul Bhatt == |
||
Revision as of 23:03, 10 November 2020
|
♠ New messages to the bottom please. I will reply here without pinging unless asked otherwise. |
|
|
hiya, noticed you deleted a page called Defastenism, i think it should not have been deleted, it was a significant art movement at least as significant as impressionism was in France in its day. it had notable members such as Gary Farrelly, David McDermott, Marina Guinness and Padraic Moore but the actual wikipedia page that was there didnt do it justice. would reccommend leaving it there i.e. restoring it, as in my view it's a kind of cultural vandalism to delete it.
Raoul Bhatt
Hello, I revised the article that you initially deleted, so it contains better references and it's more relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raoul_Bhatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonystargazer (talk • contribs)
- Okay. I don't do AfC, so you'll have to submit it and wait for a reviewer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Inuit clothing
On 17 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Inuit clothing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that modern studies have shown that the characteristic fur-trimmed hood on traditional Inuit skin clothing (example pictured) is more effective at preventing heat transfer than manufactured winter clothing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inuit clothing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Inuit clothing), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—valereee (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Deletion: Cory Briggs
I'd like to edit Cory Briggs [1] as a draft and add additional sources to his page. There are numerous articles about him and his cases in San Diego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirvlc (talk • contribs)
- Show me your best three sources, please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on your featured article! Haukur (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I really appreciate the time all the reviewers put in to make the article the best it could be. If it wasn't for you, we wouldn't have the lead image we have now, and there's no denying the new one is way better. Hope to see you around! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Four Award | |
| Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Dali (goddess). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
Triple Crown
Per your recent close, voilà. A lowly stub at the moment, but when the revolution comes it will surely expand. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Viva la revolución, my man. Looking forward to one day sipping mai tais while automated luxury adminbots write all my articles for me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Congrats on Dali FA!
Greetings PMC! Congrats on FA for Dali :) Sorry I couldn't respond to you & User:Spicy I was offline :) Regards! An emperor /// Ave 23:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate your help throughout the whole process :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you please peek at the page deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanis to see if either this draft needs to be deleted as a re-creation, if it's based on the original enough to require a history-merge, or if it's different and can be reviewed on its own merits?
If it's the last one, could you paste references that are in the deleted version to the talk page of the draft? With the references it has, it's potentially in the grey area of "maybe" when it comes to meeting WP:BIO and related notability guidelines, provided someone worked long and hard on it. My hope is that it's either a copy and can be deleted immediately, or that it's got additional references that would make me say "yea, the person is wiki-notable, even a rewrite is required."
- Mark Hanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draft:Mark Hanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's completely identical, literally to the word and link placement. It even has the exact same list of ELNO-violating links at the end. You can nuke it from space at your leisure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, tagged G4 with a link to this discussion, figured I'll save the deleting admin the time of checking it out for himself (although he probably will because it is, or should be, part of the G4-delete sanity-check routine) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the G4 was declined because it was a draft. Given that it is identical and obviously not improved upon, I figured the "anti-circumvention" exception to the "draft exception" applied, but there's no harm letting it age out with a G13 in a few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- You could try MfD, but yeah, G13 is probably the path of least resistance if it's not being actively fucked with. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ironically, the best outcome would be if someone were to [bleep] with in in a positive way, making it clear that the topic does meet WP:N and re-write it in a form suitable for Wikipedia. I'm not motivated to do that right now, but maybe you or some {{talk page stalker}} is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly hope not. It's obviously promotional editing, we shouldn't be encouraging that kind of thing by rewriting and moving to main, especially after it's already been deleted at AfD for lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you misread me. IF a topic IS notable, even if the Draft: article is initially unacceptable, it can be gutted and re-written in draft space then promoted to the main encyclopedia. If a topic is NOT notable, then of course burn it with fire and throw WP:SALT on it if necessary. This topic was in the "grey zone" so preferred first step one would be getting it out of the "grey zone" by adding suitable references that clearly demonstrate its notability. If that can't be done, then adding enough references to "firm up" the notability claim as much as possible without being spammy, then have "disinterested" editors use those sources and maybe others to try to make a suitable article, knowing that "we give up" is an acceptable outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I did misread you, considering you said the best thing would be someone re-writing it to make it suitable for Wikipedia, but I also don't want to argue about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you misread me. IF a topic IS notable, even if the Draft: article is initially unacceptable, it can be gutted and re-written in draft space then promoted to the main encyclopedia. If a topic is NOT notable, then of course burn it with fire and throw WP:SALT on it if necessary. This topic was in the "grey zone" so preferred first step one would be getting it out of the "grey zone" by adding suitable references that clearly demonstrate its notability. If that can't be done, then adding enough references to "firm up" the notability claim as much as possible without being spammy, then have "disinterested" editors use those sources and maybe others to try to make a suitable article, knowing that "we give up" is an acceptable outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly hope not. It's obviously promotional editing, we shouldn't be encouraging that kind of thing by rewriting and moving to main, especially after it's already been deleted at AfD for lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ironically, the best outcome would be if someone were to [bleep] with in in a positive way, making it clear that the topic does meet WP:N and re-write it in a form suitable for Wikipedia. I'm not motivated to do that right now, but maybe you or some {{talk page stalker}} is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- You could try MfD, but yeah, G13 is probably the path of least resistance if it's not being actively fucked with. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the G4 was declined because it was a draft. Given that it is identical and obviously not improved upon, I figured the "anti-circumvention" exception to the "draft exception" applied, but there's no harm letting it age out with a G13 in a few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, tagged G4 with a link to this discussion, figured I'll save the deleting admin the time of checking it out for himself (although he probably will because it is, or should be, part of the G4-delete sanity-check routine) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Featured Article Medal | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn
Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Sajjan Pandey.jpg as delete, but it seems you forgot to delete the page, thought I might just tell you. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, XfDCloser fail. Thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
IP talk archives
Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:142.227.150.1/Archive 1 (2nd nomination); all three keep !votes were based on the question "why we would want to delete the long history of an IP's vandalism and abuse". No-one is proposing to delete the history; the nomination itself says that the various archived notices "...are anyway available in page history". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- You literally nominated it for deletion at MfD. Your nomination doesn't make clear that you weren't seeking deletion, so of course the arguments of other participants would be based around deletion rather than some other unspecified action on your part. In any case, closing as keep doesn't mean you can't blank it or move it or whatever else you want to do to it, it just means it's not getting deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- You misundertand me. I am indeed proposing to delete the archives. No-one is proposing to delete the talk pages' history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- User talk pages are rarely ever deleted and User talk page archives are an extension of the User talk page. Normal Op (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment is orthogonal to my request; but IP talk pages are regularly, routinely, and usually blanked without archiving. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- So blank the archive. Nothing in my close precludes that; only that there was no consensus to delete the archive outright. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment is orthogonal to my request; but IP talk pages are regularly, routinely, and usually blanked without archiving. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Predictions of the end of Wikipedia
Hi PMC,
Regarding your recent close of the above AFD, there still seems to be some confusion. I'm under the impression that the keep is a means to preserve attribution for any merging that people might want to do. I've since tried to re-redirect it back to the main Wikipedia article, but apparently this has still been objected to. In reading back over the discussion, the keeps were almost invariably of the ITSJUSTNOTABLE type. Everyone that was actually looking at the sources specifically and in detail was very clear about how none of them supported the existence of the article and that the SYNTH problems were insurmountable.
Do you not agree with this assessment? Pinging Normal Op, who was suggesting that this needs to go to DRV instead of my redirecting. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vorbis: Re "as a means to preserve attribution"... that's what the edit history is for. If you redirect an article, its original contents are always still available via the edit history. Therefore, a decision to "merge" (which almost always means leave the original article as a redirect pointing to where it got merged) would be executed like you just did. But a Keep vote is a different thing. Hence my confusion why you executed actions consistent with a Merge decision, not a Keep decision. Normal Op (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that's why I'm asking here. If it really was meant as a pure keep, I think it bears a second look, because the strength of the arguments at the discussion overwhelmingly favors some sort of merge/redirect option. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said before, I hadn't even followed the AfD or the article. I was just looking at the technicality of it all. What I saw was: close as Keep, reopen discussion, close as Keep, then you did actions consistent with a Merge decision. Sometimes you just have to bend to the will of the consensus (even if you completely disagree with it) and wait another 6 months or so and re-submit an AfD. Or do a deletion review or something else. But you can't just buck the consensus and not expect some blowback for it. Normal Op (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- The closure meant exactly what I wrote: there was no consensus to delete the content outright (not even a burgeoning argument for deletion that would have merited a relist), therefore the discussion no longer belongs at Articles for Deletion. The close explicitly stated that determining whether or not to merge or redirect it can be handled outside AfD. Normally that would be by a consensus-seeking process at an appropriate venue (usually the article's talk page). I have added a clarifying comment at the AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said before, I hadn't even followed the AfD or the article. I was just looking at the technicality of it all. What I saw was: close as Keep, reopen discussion, close as Keep, then you did actions consistent with a Merge decision. Sometimes you just have to bend to the will of the consensus (even if you completely disagree with it) and wait another 6 months or so and re-submit an AfD. Or do a deletion review or something else. But you can't just buck the consensus and not expect some blowback for it. Normal Op (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that's why I'm asking here. If it really was meant as a pure keep, I think it bears a second look, because the strength of the arguments at the discussion overwhelmingly favors some sort of merge/redirect option. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Adam Jensen Page Deletion
Hello PMC. My name is Adam Jensen. I’m a hardworking independent musician from Boston. I’m wondering if you can tell me why you deleted my Wikipedia page?
It’s been there for five or more years. I did not make it and I honestly am not very computer savvy so I don’t even know how to try to re-make it on my own. I don’t see why you would come after me, I don’t bother anyone. I write and produce my own stuff. I make my living and feed my family off of my music career. Last year I got 300 million streams independently, competing with most major label artists as an independent artist. A million monthly listeners on Spotify, again out-streaming the majority of major label artists. I’m only mentioning these things because I see that you are an independent fiction writer so I’m wondering why you would decide to pick on lil ol’ me?
At first I was very angry because I figured you were just some troll/hater. But then I saw that you have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years and you seem like an unbiased, intelligent person. So I’m honestly wondering why you deleted my Wikipedia page?? Do we know each other personally?? Do you not like my music or something?? Are you just being a bully? Please let me know why. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- As an administrator, I closed the articles for deletion discussion (found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Jensen (musician)) as soft delete in accordance with Wikipedia procedures. The original nominator, who wasn't me, made a reasonable argument for deletion - that you do not appear to have garnered sufficient coverage to meet our notability guideline - and there was no opposition. Please don't attempt to recreate it yourself; autobiographies are frowned upon especially when the article has already been deleted once. (As a side note, I've removed your email address - you probably don't want it out there for eternity getting scraped by mirrors and spambots). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
So you just get to delete me forever based on your personal opinion? I notice you went to every other page that mentions my name and deleted me as well. Thats so awesome. There has been plenty of major coverage of my music over the last decade. Did you even look me up? I think you just didn’t do your research and arbitrarily deleted my page so you could add another one to your list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Its OK. You messed up. You are wrong. You delete pages for fun and you got it wrong this time. But now go back and fix it like a normal human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I meet almost every criteria listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDynamo9 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listen man, if you're going to continue to make this weird and personal, I'm going to stop responding. I understand that this is upsetting to you, but accusing me of deleting the page for arbitrary reasons despite the clear explanation I provided in my first reply isn't helpful, and neither is ordering me about and telling me I'm not acting like a human. Removing links to deleted pages from other pages is an automated function, not a personal vendetta. I'm not going to argue with you with regards to your own notability in the absence of reliable sources - this is exactly why we recommend that people avoid editing about themselves. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Moving auto-patrol right to new account
Hi PMC! Last year you gave autopatrol right to my account. Due to certain risks to my privacy I have advice to do a fresh start. Is it possible to move the autopatrol right to the new account? In the long term I think that the risk is low but, it is still present, and if this account (I am writing on it) was found, then the risk suddenly becomes very high of harassment or other things. Please let me know, if you can move the autopatrol right to my new account. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be a problem as long as there's confirmation that the new account is you (you could email me from the Sail 95 account to give me your new username, for example), but it would pretty blatantly mark your new account as a returning user. And considering you said you wanted to continue to work in the same area, it would probably be a very obvious indicator that the new account was you specifically. I'm willing to do it, but I just want you to keep in mind that it might make your fresh start harder to maintain anonymity on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The chance of the group who I am thinking about, even finding one of the accounts is very low. I think that they will not go through the trouble of making any edits just to harass, but it is probably safer to start again, so that the account cannot be traced to this one such as with a name change. Helps that I know exactly who the person making the biggest problem is, what I am being careful about, so that I can make the chance of finding as low as possible. Maybe it is an idea to add the autopatrol right after a few weeks or months instead. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- That would make it less obvious for sure, although again if you're making the same kind of articles in the same topic area your identity might still be fairly obvious (especially if it's a low-traffic topic area with few other active editors). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, it is worth saying, that I will probably edit in more areas too, instead of one specific area. I will let you know about it soon. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, it is worth saying, that I will probably edit in more areas too, instead of one specific area. I will let you know about it soon. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- That would make it less obvious for sure, although again if you're making the same kind of articles in the same topic area your identity might still be fairly obvious (especially if it's a low-traffic topic area with few other active editors). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The chance of the group who I am thinking about, even finding one of the accounts is very low. I think that they will not go through the trouble of making any edits just to harass, but it is probably safer to start again, so that the account cannot be traced to this one such as with a name change. Helps that I know exactly who the person making the biggest problem is, what I am being careful about, so that I can make the chance of finding as low as possible. Maybe it is an idea to add the autopatrol right after a few weeks or months instead. Thanks Sail 95 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Sipiniq
On 19 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sipiniq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Inuit identity of sipiniq referred to individuals who were believed to have changed their physical sex at the moment of birth, but were socialized as members of their original gender? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sipiniq. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sipiniq), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
|
I really liked the sipiniq article - thanks for creating it, it's super interesting and important the infomation is represented here! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
- Lajmmoore, thanks! I found out about it while writing about inuit clothing. There was a point where I'd written a couple paragraphs about sipiniq in the clothing article just to explain the concept and why the clothing mattered and I realized it would be better off as its own article, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Why did you close page on Frank Majuric
Today I was going to do some editing to Frank majuri's page and found out you deleted it. Just asking why was it deleted there was no reason to delete it GiacomoValenti (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion linked in the deletion log (which you obviously read since you know I deleted the page) had a consensus for delete. Come on, you've been here long enough to be able to follow a link to an AfD discussion and read it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Dali (goddess) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Dali (goddess) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 November 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the article, introduced "Right! This was my first GA, way back in early 2018. It's come a long way since the GA version, and I think at this point I have to stop being a coward and just do the FA nom. I've scoured the internet for every available source, and I'm pretty sure this is as comprehensive as I can make it without actually learning Georgian (and even then, the most important Georgian source, Elene Virsaladze's Georgian hunting myths and poetry, is available online in a high-quality English translation published by the Georgian National Academy). For sources which are not freely/immediately available online, I have access to PDFs of most and can email copies to anyone who wants to do a source check. The evolution of Dali is an incredible testimony to the plasticity and transformation of myth. To some authors, she represents evidence that classical Georgia borrowed mythemes from classical Greece. To others, she is an example of the mistress of the hunt, an archetype found in stories across Europe. After Christianity came to Georgia, she was sometimes regarded as a demoness. No matter the interpretation, she remains uniquely herself: haughty, demanding, and seductive. To quote John Mulaney: Dali is a bitch, and I like her so much."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Kindly help me to remove the template Orphan from the subject page, it was related with the Silk waste already but one user removed it from there, I have added it again with explanation in edit summary. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you should talk to the editor who removed it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I don't think it will work that way but let me try. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's always best to first talk to someone you have a disagreement with rather than randomly pulling in uninvolved people to comment. Even if done with good intentions it can make the person feel like you're trying to gang up on them or win by numbers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well noted all! But please don't take me wrongly, I approached you because you did it for another page Cationization of cotton [[2]]. I have immediately requested the user[[3]] as per your advise. Warm regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's always best to first talk to someone you have a disagreement with rather than randomly pulling in uninvolved people to comment. Even if done with good intentions it can make the person feel like you're trying to gang up on them or win by numbers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I don't think it will work that way but let me try. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Since the article is no longer an orphan, I removed the template. If someone restores it, check Special:Whatlinkshere/Bourette. If any actual ARTICLES - not redirects, discussion pages, etc. link to it, then it is not an orphan and the template can be re-removed. On the other hand, if it becomes orphaned again, the template can be restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I could've done that but didn't in case the edit was re-reverted, which is why I suggested that Rajivvasudev should discuss things with Roxy before proceeding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks PMC, and davidwr for your time and advise. Warm regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Sérgio Trindade
User:Pesqara has asked for a deletion review of Sérgio Trindade. 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. —Cryptic 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Random gay person
Can user:Random gay person please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- They haven't edited since Cluebot warned them at 01:37. If they resume, let me know, but there's nothing staggeringly urgent about their edits so far anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duplicaria brevicula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duplicaria.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
RfC about lists of schools
Hi there. I noticed you removed some red linked schools from List of schools in Egypt a few months ago. There's currently an RfC going on in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools about if non-reliably sourced/red linked entries should be included in school lists or not. Which I thought you might want to participate in. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)