User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive12

On the deletion of Category:Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves

I saw that "Category:Actors who played fictionalized versions of themselves" which I created has been deleted. Here are the questions I have:

1. I'd like to know on what grounds was this decided. Was it by the counting of that so-called "not-vote"? Or was it resolved by reasons?
2. You left a comment that "No objection to making a list if the info is sourced". What does it mean exactly? As most, if not all, of the pages in the deleted category have clearly stated individually that the actors in question have played a fictionalized version of himself or herself in exactly which movie or show or media work, why was the category deleted in the first place?

Wavingdragon (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to see a link from the record of deletion, to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14 where the category was discussed. I assessed the discussion and, although opinions were divided, I concluded that there was sufficient consensus for deletion.

The criteria for WP:Overcategorization do not apply to lists, so you may create a list (article) on this topic if (i) there are citations to show that the topic is notable, and (ii) the grounds for including persons in the list are sufficiently well sourced. I went back after the closure and added a link to the bot's contributions, to make it easy for you or other interested editors to create a list starting with the former category members. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive schools in Camden

Hi, I notice that Category:Comprehensive schools in Camden has been tagged {{db-c1}} again. Do you know if it was emptied out of process again, or is this valid now? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_2#Category:Comprehensive_schools_in_London is still open; so are a few from April, see WP:CFDAC, despite listing them as requests for closure at the admin noticeboard. The editor who tagged the Camden category apparently forgot to revert himself on that one as he did on several others after tagging them. – Fayenatic London 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I only noticed the discussion after tagging a number of these related categories, and it appears I did fail to revert this one. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it was clearly in good faith so I didn't see any need to write to you about it – thanks anyway for your note. – Fayenatic London 19:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Question re: wikidata edits

Re this edit summary, for example. I've been playing around a bit and experimenting with updating the wikidata on categories that have been deleted or renamed, and I think it's all set up so that bots fix the wikidata information relatively quickly after a category is deleted or renamed. I have both changed the wikidata manually after a category name is deleted and also waited a few hours and done nothing, and in the cases where I do nothing, a bot always does what I would have normally done to wikidata. So I don't think we need to do anything with it? Correct me if I am wrong or if there is something I am missing. I'm far from a wikidata expert. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory, as far as I know it still depends which bot gets there first. If it's EmausBot, it will do a rename just fine. However, if it's HooBot, it treats it as a deletion, and removes the interwiki link. I asked Emaus if he would take over the deletion side for categories so that HooBot could leave them alone, but no response yet. I'll follow him up.

Only a minority of categories have interwikis anyway, and I quite often find there are other useful things I can do at Wikidata e.g. merge two Wikidata sets – I don't think the bots would do that. It helps that I'm using Chrome these days, which offers automatic translation.

Oh, and if we move the category page, Wikidata captures the renaming automatically and instantly. It would be good if the CFDW bots start doing that. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On that matter, WT:CFD/W#Category renames --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses; I will keep an eye on the wikidata thing then and keep checking them when they exist. Let me know if you hear back from Emaus or have any updates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, mergers will never be processed by bots. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_6#Category:Christian_holidays was a case in point as the two categories had different sets of interwikis, with only a partial overlap. I merged a couple of the foreign duplicate categories manually, nominated another (in English – hope they accept it!) as I figured out its Cfd page, and manually merged the Wikidata entries. I wouldn't impose any of that on others, but it was an interesting side trip. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Countryside Properties logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Countryside Properties logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Royal Navy equipment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Royal Navy equipment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Royal Navy equipment until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Gbawden (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Terms / terminology

Dear Fayenatic, I noticed you closed the CfD and had Category:Christian terms renamed into Category:Christian terminology. I'd like to submit a new delete CfD on the same category because the rename actually allows for a better motivation for deleting. Do you know if it is permitted to submit a new CfD so quickly after the previous one, taking in mind the rename and the consequent change in motivation? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but IMHO it's much too early to challenge a discussion with such a clear outcome, unless you were raising it as part of a group nomination e.g. all the religious terminology categories.

On this topic, be aware of the 22 Dec 2012 discussions, if you weren't already. I've just added a link on that category's talk page. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! By the way, very funny to see that in 2012 a rename was proposed and nothing happened, while later on a delete was proposed and the same rename as discussed in 2012 happened after all. So you're apparently right, consensus can change. But with your reaction at hand, I will refrain from posting another CfD on this, for the time being. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Kavala

I'm nearly finished reading the article on Kavala. I made quite a few edits, putting sentences into Standard English, making sentences more concise, choosing more accurate English words, etc. I got to the section on Kavala#Beaches, and I saw that there is a lot of information about the various beaches like the telephone number one can call for more information, the actual buses one can take to reach a beach, etc. I'm wondering whether that is appropriate for a WP article, and whether there maybe is too much information on each beach. Do you want to take a look at it?

Also, in the section Kavala#Monuments and landmarks, in the subsection "The Imaret", I cam across a sentence that doesn't sound quite right, but I don't know how to fix it. It is:

"It operated as a Muslim seminary – internship and "workhouse" for all the poor of the city regardless of religion."

I think the punctuation after "seminary" may not be right (I put the en-dash), and I don't think "internship" is the right word there. I don't know if you can fix this. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I guessed that "internship" meant occupational training, and have put that in, along with creating a redirect at Muslim seminary (matching the one at Islamic seminary).

I suggest taking out most of the info about the beaches, mainly because it's unsourced, excessive non-encyclopedic detail. Maybe move some of it to Wikitravel. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for being patient with me at Categories for discussion. Next time I will follow process - I had a momentary lapse of memory. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm glad you took it in good spirits, Bluerasberry! Hope I wasn't teaching you to suck eggs. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional women engineers

Category:Fictional women engineers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, JDDJS, much appreciated. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hellenismos

Actually, the discussion is going on right now on the portal page for Hellenismos, as there is no portal for "Hellenism (religion)". The issue is not over the content of the article as much as the name of it. Basically, one editor with no other edit history appeared suddenly and started making revisions on every related article, without discussion of the matter on a talk page first. He then accused myself and another editor who agreed with me, of being one in the same. If the issue of content forking is paramount and as an administrator I suppose you have the right to decide so, could you please reverse the redirect the other way, before the bots start changing the multitude of other redirects? Thank you very much for your time.Reigndog (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, is this because I populated Category:Hellenismos portal but left the article at this historical name Hellenism (religion)? Sorry if that seems confusing, but it really doesn't matter in the short term that the name of the portal does not match the article while they are being discussed. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. This is a preexisting issue of an editor changing the name/location of the article to Hellenism (religion) without any discussion or consensus. Then the original portal page of Hellenismos was changed to Hellenism, again without any consensus or discussion. The names of the portal and the page matched before the portal was moved/renamed by this brand new editor. I am very thankful that you populated Category:Hellenismos portal, as I was not sure how to do so myself. (I am not the most skilled editor here, although I have been editing for awhile, most of my edits are slight ones, in particular, adding citations.) My only concern here and now, is your re-diversion of the Hellenismos page and what that will do to other related redirects. Basically, my point is, no consensus was ever reached, in any discussion, to move Hellenismos to Hellenism (religion). My redirect that you reverted was only trying to reflect that. As I said, the relevant discussion is happening right now but is not actually on the Hellenism (religion) page anymore and only began on there by chance.Reigndog (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For the article, the point is that it was moved from its longstanding English name (see WP:EN) Hellenism (religion) to Hellenismos without consensus, and without using the proper method which would have moved the page history. Which redirects are you concerned about? – Fayenatic London 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For (my) reference, the relevant discussions are at Talk:Hellenism_(religion)#Redirect, Talk:Hellenismos and portal talk:Hellenismos - where the portal is being discussed rather than the article. Some participants may assume that both will be covered by the outcome, but the RM does not make any proposal for the article, which will plainly not be moved to "Hellenism" in any case. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, and for the record, the original name of the article by the time it had any substantial content was "Hellenismos". It was then changed to "Hellenic Polytheism" after a consensus discussion. Someone then changed it to "Hellenism (religion)" without any discussion whatsoever, much less after a consensus discussion. I am not sure of the relevance of the length of time the article was named "Hellenism (religion)", considering how that name/move was just the will of one person, without even a given explanation.Reigndog (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about there; can you paste links to show me? The article Hellenism (religion) was always about 30kb in size until 11 June 2014 when you cut and pasted it to Hellenismos, which is a wrong way to do a move, resulting in the subsequent version history being split between two different pages. It has never been at Hellenic polytheism or Hellenic Polytheism. Ah, I see now that it was moved [1] from Hellenic polytheistic reconstructionism in November 2013, having moved from Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism in October. I guess that was what you meant. Anyway, WP:MOVE tells you a short way ({{db-move}}) and a long way (WP:RM) that you could have requested for the old redirect to be deleted so that the article could be moved back. From an admin point of view, I'm not interested in the name as much as keeping the history of the page together – which is chopped up by editors cutting and pasting between pages, instead of moving. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, my apologies. I very much meant "Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism". I am not the most experienced editor here. I had no idea about how to use the "move" function until another editor recently explained it to me. My only intention was to bring the title of the article back to a name that was decided upon after a discussion, instead of a name change resulting from no discussion. Thank you again.Reigndog (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to let me know if something like consensus emerges, and either the article or the portal and its category are ready to move. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CFD section heading

The CFD of Category:Fish of Great Britain is named differently to the category - should it be changed ? DexDor (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, initially I was going to propose a merge to Fish of Europe which would have been clearer. I have changed it now. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

procedural close issue

I noted your procedural close on the 2nd "music geography" CfD. Another parallel-despite-the-original-not-being-closed-yet is underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_18#Category:People_by_ethnic_or_national_origin; the original unclosed one is on the July 9 page.....they're much the same, especially since the 1st was altered to the same title as the newer one....to me both unnecessarily picayune and garbled from the start, and not-called-for or useful in any way; and repeating the same semantic confusions in both (nom and one supporter are clearly not native English speakers who need terms clarified for them, despite having presumed to nominate changes on words and realities they don't understand, but that's beside the point to the two-at-the-same-time issue re a needed procedural close on the 2nd.Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Skookum1. I would have closed it procedurally if I had caught it early. Now, I don't think that would be appropriate. With music geography, the first nom was getting somewhere, so the second one should not have been started. With this one, the first nom was solidly opposed, so it would have been OK for the nominator to withdraw it, close it himself and start a fresh one; he almost did that (didn't actually close it) and I hope has learnt not to do this again. Also, I won't do a procedural close on this one because some editors have given their support for it. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

They're also all clearly second-language speakers of English without a full grasp of the language; it's the same nomination, by the same nominator, of the one you closed as "keep"; the logic there should apply here; that he has a claque that followed him over from the first one should make no difference as to the outcome; his wanting to ask what the difference is clearly shows he's not equipped to have nominated this; it also winds up being a bulk nomination, as by his own assertion 241 "categorys" will need changing, if he gets his way. Are we really going to let people who can't use English properly decide the shape of English Wikipedia. Really??. Ethnic politics is getting deeper by the day, and the doo-doo is everywhere; the agenda behind this I can't pin down, but IMO it's not innocent or based only on lexical hair-picking.Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1: please be quiet. I could provide links to lots of spelling mistakes of your own, including mistypes in links that you provide, so that you weaken your own arguments by including redlinks instead of illustrations. I've closed it, and with what I think is the right outcome, but it's no credit to you. Calm down and stop making personal attacks. (Yes, I do know people make them against you too.) – Fayenatic London 14:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm just getting very tired of stupid ideas being fielded by stupid people with stupid arguments and in this case, with someone who doesn't even know the words he's proposing to use and has to ask. That something like this was dragged out by repeating the same nonsense and "you have to explain to me because I don't understand [the words I'm proposing to use]" isn't funny, it's a CFWT, as are too many RMs and CfDs fielded by stupid people with stupid ideas using stupid arguments without hearing or listening to anyone else except those who feel like agreeing with their stupidity and won't listen to reason or reality or even sources but their own "preferences". In this case ethno-agendas of some kind are afoot and recognizably so; but being told how to use English by someone who doesn't even know how to use it themselves etc...and there's a difference between typos (which yes I make a lot of because I type fast...and do have bad eyes now) and outright spelling mistakes like "categorys".Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

and re second-language speakers of English, I teach English privately for a living and second-language-speaker mistakes and mis-usages are very easily recognizable as such...."a can of worm"...and various structural awkwardnesses that no native speaker would use...not even me with my convoluted syntax (bad me for studying classics and literature and not thinking in terse point-form as is too often demanded of me by those who are offended by more than seven sentences at a time). I wouldn't presume to make such arguments in Spanish or French Wikipedia, though I speak both passably...but mind you other-language wikipedia communities don't play the same extensive games with name-fiddling that's way too common and ongoing in English Wikipedia.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, please stop writing on my page calling other people stupid and accusing them of not listening, at least until you yourself start making a habit of answering other people's questions. You have routinely ignored mine, for a start. If someone asks a question, even if in your humble opinion it is objectively stupid, just answer it, without making your answer unnecessarily long by calling them stupid. – Fayenatic London 08:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

People related to Plato

Dear Fayenatic london, I noticed you closed the CfD on people related to Plato. Just for curiosity, as a split is not something that can be done automatically, I guess, then who is going to execute this split? I hope that I haven't become responsible for executing the split after I was the first to make this suggestion!? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, it's listed at WP:CFDWM so that anybody willing can pick it up. Of course, you'd be very welcome if you have the time and inclination! – Fayenatic London 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is also an interesting page, so I learn new things about Wikipedia every day :-) I'll see if I have time for it in the coming week, it shouldn't be a big issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Planted" news articles already explained

Hi Fayenatic- I changed the edit you made to the Suzanne Olsson page- I will explain why. There have been other pages here at wiki about her- over the years each time the pages got filled with short articles like you found- claiming she was a tomb raider- 'hurting local Muslim sentiments" et cetera...But these comments were made by the man who was the tomb caretaker...he got mean and spiteful because he thought he should have got more baksheesh..But Olsson explains in her book and in many places online that the Project was carried on by archaeologists from the local University- with the blessings of the Chief Minster and Government of India. There never was any tomb raiding- or demanding the tomb because she was "the 59th descendant of jesus By inserting those in the article after Olsson has already spent years explaining how those comments were made- and by whom- and for what ulterior motive...and now she insists the page be deleted (again)...she doesn't want to deal with Wiki anymore.. As well intentioned as wiki editors are- it is NOT appropriate to insert something- anything that is found online just because it's there.. Olsson is a living person and finds these attacks disheartening. She has already spent years explaining them and should not have to keep defending herself. A lot about this is already explained in her book. .. I dont blame her for getting upset....this only happens here at wiki.... I hope there is a speedy deletion of the page...Thanks for all your help and understanding...I really appreciate it...Best. Granada2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated at the deletion discussion, Wikipedia should give due weight to content that is based on independent sources. You have already admitted to a conflict of interest, and I suggest you confine your edits on this subject to the article talk page. I don't know what you mean by "this only happens at wiki", as national broadsheet newspapers are carrying the material; if you can demonstrate that they published retractions, then (and only then) should it be removed or presented entirely differently. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

---

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced - or denied by the subject-must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

The material is well sourced, not from tabloids or blogs but broadsheets. See wp:IRS. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The section of the article in question has now been reworded in a way that I believe breaches NPOV and would meet the definition of unduly self-serving in WP:PRIMARY. As I am at three reverts and you appear to be active at the moment, would you mind casting your eye over it? Dolescum (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced - OR DENIED BY THE SUBJECT--must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada2000 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Dolescum has answered this at Talk:Suzanne_Marie_Olsson#Self-serving_claim_in_article. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, looking at how this has all played out, I can't help but think I've just witnessed some particularly brilliant trolling. Dolescum (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dolescum: I'm not sure I follow you. Anyway, a more independent version of the article is back now. – Fayenatic London 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fayenatic london. You have new messages at Jfhutson's talk page.
Message added 13:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JFH (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A category move incomplete

I see you edited Category:Post-transition metals‎‎ (it was a soft redirect), following my proposal [2]. However, I expected the pages in there (articles & subcategories) to be moved too (i.e., aluminium gets an edit changing Category:poor metals into Category:post-transition metals). Could you make a check? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is listed at WP:CFDW and a bot should populate it shortly. Admins will check that the job has been completed before removing tasks from that list. Thanks for your attentiveness, I'm always glad to find someone else being thorough! – Fayenatic London 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, will be fine then. So I missed patience for the bot. (Meant to say: I thought it would be one series of bot edits). -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is most often the case, but the bot will not work where the new name currently has a redirect to the old name; so this must first be edited or deleted.

As it happens, I found a complicated situation in this case where both pages had a set of foreign-language interwikis, which needed to be merged. A few languages had two categories, so I first merged those using {{category redirect}} or its foreign equivalent, and removed the Wikidata link for the redirected category. Having got to the position where there was only one category listed for each language, I merged the Wikidata pages. I wouldn't expect everyone to do this, but I like getting my hands under the bonnet! – Fayenatic London 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving category pages

I noticed that you were manually moving category pages; is Cydebot not working? Normally, the bot does the job of creating the new category page automatically after something is listed at WP:CFD/W. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've started doing this in a variety of cases:

1. Where the old category has interwikis (other languages or Commons). Moving the page instantly and automatically results in Wikidata being updated, so I don't have to worry about checking that.
2. Where the old category page has a long history which I thought might be of interest.
3. Where the target category page currently has a redirect, which needs manually deleting anyway.
4. Where the old page has a template (e.g. years in country) which will need editing anyway to correspond to the new name.
5. Where I want to leave a redirect at the old name.
6. Where the category has so few members that it's as easy to do the whole thing manually, as to list it for the bots.
7. Where the consensus is to rename and purge, in which case I manually move the minority of pages that should be in the new category, before listing the old page for deletion rather than renaming.

Interesting; I hadn't realised myself that it was useful in so many different situations! I have in mind to update WP:CFDAI but I wouldn't put all this in there. – Fayenatic London 06:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Category renames. No, I've not emailed Cyde. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but I disagree with several of those reasons. In the case of #2: a category page can have a long history but typically does not have an interesting one. The addition and removal of categories, templates, sort keys, portal and Commons links, etc., are not significant or creative changes like, for example, the addition or editing of content in an article. In the case of #3, #4, #6, and #7, I don't see the connection between any of those situations and the page history of the old category. In the case of #5, redirects should be {{category redirect}}s, not the normal hard redirects created by a page move.

In truth, I find the short page history of a category moved by Cydebot to be much easier to work with than the convoluted page history of a manually moved category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. Taking the last point first: in that case, why are we asking Cydeweys to automate moving the category page? I see he has replied and is working on it. Ah, I see you have asked him not to... Had you noticed that Armbrustbot doing this already? e.g. see Category:Suncheon. I had assumed that now that the facility exists, moving the category page after a CFD was generally accepted as advantageous and desirable, based on scanning the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive262#Category_pages_will_be_movable_soon and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_15#Limiting_category_moves.

I accept your point re #2 that a lot of category page history is not necessarily interesting. However, a large part of old history was adding/changing interwikis, and current history for this is now held at wikidata instead. In my view it is worth keeping the other trivia that you mention in order to gain a readable trail of moves, instead of the repeated "what links here" exercise that we have to do at the moment.

For number 5, try moving a category. It now creates a proper category redirect. This was fixed very early after the change went live in MediaWiki software.

For the others, I was not making a connection between the situations and keeping the page history. I simply meant that I found it easier to process the whole task manually than to instruct the bot, wait for it to run (this varies between seconds and hours), and only then carry out the consequential amendments. For me, moving makes a happier workflow than copy/paste. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I understand your points, though I do not agree with all of them, but I think we should reach a consensus before implementing this type of change. Right now, I can find no pertinent discussion about this type of change in the processing of categories at WP:CFD/W, since the AN and WT:CAT discussions both relate primarily to the topic of restricting users' ability to move categories outside of the WP:CFD process. I have started a thread at WT:CFD requesting a link to any relevant discussion and, if none has taken place, to start this discussion (and I invite you to share your perspective). If there is a consensus among CFD editors to use the move tool, then by all means we'll do so. However, in the meantime, I think it would be best to allow Cydebot to continue processing WP:CFD/W items as usual without manual/human intervention in the form of category moves. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing proposal because of personal attacks towards nominator

I don't understand your decision, closing my proposal from July 18th. The personal attacks were directed towards me, not made by me and closing the proposal is a way of giving in to the person who made the attacks and not helping me at all. Two people did support, three people did oppose, but I had written a response, which they just are not answering, maybe they will at a later point. The proposal is not too old as well, usually it would be left open for another one or two weeks. I don't agree with that practise at all. CN1 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The normal practice at CFD, and any other deletions, is one week. (See WP:XFD) We have a backlog at the moment, so they are taking longer, but this is not "usual". I would not advise getting into arguments with Skookum1; in my experience make his own points, repeatedly and at length, but generally does not answer questions.

So, it's not as if I closed it early; it had already had twice the "usual" time. Rather, I chose not to let it run longer, because I did not expect it to become any more constructive.

Anyway, sorry you were disappointed with the outcome on this, but you had three !votes in support and three against, which clearly is a "no consensus" result. I also thought the latter were more experienced participants and were making stronger policy-based arguments. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Animorphs AFD

Perhaps you have some thought on this. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would Seerowpedia accept trans-wiki'd content from here? Help yourself! I suggest giving attribution in the edit summary there, i.e. a link to the Wikipedia page. If you have noticed me editing Animorphs pages, that was probably mainly to resolve dead links. I'm not a fan of the franchise; I just don't like it when deletions leave a mess. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I never heard of the franchise before it came up at AFD. I just thought that if someone wrote 54 articles, they should get a chance to defend their work before it is all deleted. After all, the articles been sitting around for years, apparently without bothering anyone. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional captains

Hi Jc37, this CFD has been closed at last, so feel free to diffuse the category to your taste. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Thanks for the head's up : )

I'll look into working on it. I may need to ask a bot user (or, if appropriate just use CFD/W) to move everything to the main target (Category:Fictional military captains‎) and then just fix the rest as needed. - jc37 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, am I glad to see you, jc37! I as thinking of dropping you a line. Closing CFDs seems to be appealing to only a very few admins at the moment, with Armbrust's help at CFDW. If you would care to clear some of the backlog at WP:CFDAC, I for one would be most grateful.

Feel free to use CFDW to do most of the work on captains, you'll get no complaint from me. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I want to get this captain framework built first though (while it's fresh in my head : )

And all that aside, I hope everything is going well with you : ) - jc37 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On the recategorisation of fell running events to fell running competitions

Following this change there are three pages Bob Graham Round, Paddy Buckley Round and Ramsay Round that are now classified as competitions when they are better classified as "challenges". They certainly aren't competitions in the traditional sense of several individuals competing against one another as would happen in a race like The Three Peaks for example. They aren't events either as an individual may attempt them at any time rather than on a specific date.

I'm not sure what the best category would be for these - Fell/mountain running challenge would be the closest.

REWightman (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I replied at Category talk:Fell running competitions. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

here's one of those mysterious edit glitches I think it was you I told about

I just expanded band government and somehow, on this edit, the "References" and "External links" section headings, and a chunk of new text, disappeared; see the previous edit and notice that nothing shows up in the changes I made that would have caused that.

Also I found your comments about me somewhat offensive as being false; I answer questions all the time, but get ignored or misread, or whined about as TLDR; I "go on" because I'm trying to lay out details which it seems nobody cares to hear or acknowledge or do anything about; and I ask qustions all the time, as I did on the RM talk page a long time ago about bulk BOLD moves and the arduous process to reverse them against bureaucratic or just obstinate opposition and find myself vilified for trying to correct gross mistakes; I note that the individual guilty of much of those bulk moves is now at ANI again saying "I have not disrupted anything" when in fact that's all he's done for a number of years now; counterfactual and denialist as always; and blaming the victim once again, as is one of his regular and recognizable tactics. I'm staying oout of that because it would only be turned on me by people who haven't seen all that's going on; and who complain about TLDR or "attitude" while having plenty of their own; and though I could take a whole day to point out all the many things that were disruptive, I'm tired of wasting my time on fools and those who don't deal with one correctly when they see one, while commandeering authority in Wikipedia without having the capacity to use it impartially or intelligently.

This comment, by the way, is an exception to the wikibreak and its rationale described on my talk and user pages; I came t o report the glitch, but since I'm here, yes to vent about what you said about me; given that you used personal reasons to kibosh needed RM/CfD changes re Squamish remains a black mark to me on the RM/CfD decision/discussion process.Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: Re para. 1: you used a ? instead of a > - I fixed it with this edit. The whole of the content from that <!-- became hidden; the references only showed up because a recent change to the MediaWiki software adds a phantom <references /> at the very bottom if there are any undisplayed refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1: rebutting your accusation of falsehood, here are questions that I have asked you in the last six months alone which you chose not to answer:

1. User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive11#Category:Squamish_redux - end of that section at 14:40, 26 February 2014
2. User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive11#Skookum1 (in the collapsed section), my question at 15:38, 26 March 2014

I have just looked at the wikibreak note on your page, and commiserate with you in your grief. There is no need for you to respond to the above in any timescale or at all, but you (and anybody else reading this far) deserved a reply. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Roman Catholics

Why did you conclude that the agreed action was to delete the category? That wasn't the majority view. I think you've been too quick. I read it as two editors supporting deletion (John.Pack.Lambert and Mannanan51); three editors supporting its retention (contaldo80, Marcocapelle, and Wilthacheerleader); one editor asking for a review of effected articles one by one (Sonlnsta90); and one editor suggesting a purge where not mentioned in the article (Peterkingiron). Contaldo80 (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Although there was no consensus, there were strong policy reasons for deletion, as the articles are biographies including living people. I will state this when I add a link to the diffs. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that's no reason for a blanket ban is it? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have given the rationale now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Category:LGBT Roman Catholics. If you consider my close was not valid, you may raise it at WP:DRV. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already - thanks. I'm concerned that you chose to ignore the majority suggestion of keeping the category or reviewing article by article; in favour of complete deletion. I think you will also appreciate that this issue is a very sensitive one. Many gay people face discrimination from religious organisations around the world. It is important therefore to show that there is transparency and impartiality in administration decisions that are made on wikipedia. While I have no doubt of your personal integrity and that you act in good faith, I nevertheless am concerned that there could be a perceived conflict of interest if a decision to delete a category concerning religion and homosexuality is made by an administrator with a self-declared interest in either religious or LGBT issues. I hope you share my concern. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a link to the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 7 on the CFD page. Please note my active and consistent support for creating a list instead. I believe this does not ignore the suggested review process, but rather facilitates it. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Category close: headcount or discussion?

Dear Fayenatic, just a very general question. Occasionally I notice in CfD discussions that I raise a point and my opponents do not react, they just withdraw from the discussion. In such a case it seems to me (but I'm not sure of course) that the point I raised was right. To what extent does this count when anyone closes a CfD? Or is it simply a headcount while the content of the discussion doesn't really matter? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the guidance is at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE. In the situation you describe, I would assess whether you appear to have clinched the argument, or (hypothetically speaking) missed the point. Discussion matters a lot, and sometimes when the voting appears evenly balanced I still conclude that there is sufficient support for an action "by weight of argument". Usually I would state which points I found persuasive, and often it is those that demonstrate that a policy should be applied in a certain way. I would generally not allow numbers to outweigh solid policy arguments, except perhaps if they were stating that notability was satisfied. (This came up at my RfA.) Hope this helps, – Fayenatic London 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I was hoping on something like this but just wanted to be sure. As for your invitation on closing discussions, I think, for the moment, that would be too much of a responsibility for me, especially since I have insufficient knowledge of wikipedian case law. Learning every day, still. But thanks a lot for your confidence! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Trackmasters

Congratulations. Talk about not understanding guidelines or comments. Please see the CfD at CfD. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Interwikis

I have used the other way, but it sometimes screws up Farsi (written from right to left) when there is a parenthetical, it tries to change directions so that the parenthetical appears proper but is logically placed before the base text generating errors. Most Farsi editors also don't use it but wait for the bot. Not sure the cause but it seems that either the wiki software or the windows cut and paste or some other software tries to put various direction changing characters into the stew (because computers are smarter than humans, no doubt) but it's a known inefficiency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

looking for a certain talkpage template, can't find it

What's the template for talkpages that says only improving the article or matters to do with the article should be discussed? That needs to go on Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster. The one I've found is simply the generic talkpage header, I know there's one that is particular about what should be discussed on the talkpage...I guess I'll look on Talk:Adrian Dix maybe...that's another discussion where people disavowing any connection to the ruling party claimed they were "just interested citizens" but were entirely POV in their attack mode, and were seeking to have me banned for being in the way, and accusing me of POV.... not just the not calling the kettle black, but treating truth as POV; BC politics is a snakepit, the worst in Canada and infamously so, I should know better to stay away from it even when seeking neutrality.Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's this one {{Not a forum}} but that doesn't say what I thought it did. His demands I produce cites for the government-media-corporate triad are not about the article or how to improve it, but POV axe-grinding and attack mode, as are his repeated troll-taunts and demands on my talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

They are in fact in some of the sources I've compiled, and more than one from the mainstream media, including being alluded to in The Guardian article. I'll add "not a forum" anyway, but if there's another more suitable for what he's doing, please add it. I've spent enough time on this already since getting up, and my ESL student will be on line in a few moments...and my b.p. was through the roof when I got up; and probably was why I woke up without much sleep...Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the one you are looking for. Browse the categories from the one that you did find, e.g. Category:Talk header templates.

Although I didn't know about your b.p., I could sense well enough that you needed a break before. I wish you had accepted it and gone to the park like Mandruss says now. I sure don't mean to aggravate your situation.

Anyway, if there's more to say let's take it back to your talk page. Please ping me there rather than here. However, I will not be available much over the next week. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting with mixed feelings that Skookum1 has left Wikipedia. It is clearly in the good interests of his health that he should do so. He has been a capable and prolific contributor, but made enemies unnecessarily by his conduct on talk pages. He has just made a post showing that he still resents that I gave him a well-intentioned break before, and refusing to acknowledge the reasons behind it. His last interchange with me here was an example of a promise to come up with stuff, followed by bluster when someone called him on it – one of several unconstructive patterns of behaviour. In the end he has a life to live, and will do better without being wound up and winding up here.

Wishing him long life and peace. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Faith-based beliefs

Please keep your Biblical faith-based beliefs to yourself and stay away from people's User Pages. Thank you. Dickie birdie (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dickie birdie: What a strange comment! I had just re-used one of your old contributions in another article, and dropped by to see how long you had been editing. The latter part of your comment apparently relates to this edit when I reinstated the {{user page}} template on your user page, since it looked somewhat like an article. That action was based on Wikipedia policies (WP:FAKEARTICLE) and made no mention of faith, Biblical or otherwise. Anyway, your subsequent edits make clear that it is a user page, which is fine; thanks. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in moving Category:Antisemitism apparently per "WP:CFDS" that may not have followed the required timely procedures for such a move without decent discussion/s as it effects great numbers of sub-categories, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Presumably if this move review succeeds in overturning the recent move, you will also accordingly revert the hasty move you made and reinstate the original category, or at a minimum seek out time for more detailed discussions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@IZAK: renaming the main category for a page is standard practice following an RM, see WP:CSD#C2D. Here is the speedy nomination, which was unopposed. I take the point about subcategories being inconsistent at the moment, but as they were not included in that speedy nomination, so much the better for reverting the situation now. If the page move gets reverted then, yes, anyone can nominate the category at WP:CFDS to be speedily put back.

Is your point that C2D does not apply because this renaming is controversial? {If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply.) In that case, you could have simply pointed this out to me and requested me to reverse it, and I would have done so. However, now that you have included it in the Move review, I am not sure that it would now be helpful for me to reverse the category change before that discussion concludes. Shabbat Shalom – Fayenatic London 14:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for the thoughtful response. Much appreciated. Take care and Shabbat Shalom, IZAK (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Category advice

Hi, I noticed that Category:Orleans Territory is not in line with Territory of Orleans. Does this qualify for speedy renaming after being moved 5 years ago, and being stable since then? (I'm trying not to create any more drama at CFDS) kennethaw88 • talk 03:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: Yes, that looks fine, especially given the justification stated at Talk:Territory of Orleans. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the nomination. kennethaw88 • talk 14:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Avraham Solomon

Would deletion of this article, without discussion, be controversial? See WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. However, I see from User talk:Musicperson75 that it has been prodded before, so requires a full nomination anyway. Thanks for making me check. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Shopping malls in Lucas County, Ohio

Category:Shopping malls in Lucas County, Ohio, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

CfD closure

Hi, please would you consider closing the Cfd from May 2? It needs someone with experience and stature.

Unless we all want to set a new record for the longest running XfD... – Fayenatic London 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Closed. (To be honest, I didn't even try to find all the cfd nomination tags to remove them from the cats - you're welcome to, or if you want to have cydebot or whatever do it, that's of course fine too : )

My memory could be failing me, but I think there may still be some CfDs out there which have never been closed, going on years now.  : )

But then that follows the policy that not all discussions "need" to be closed : )

That said, I'll take a look at CfD to see about closing any of the more recent ones...

Happy editing : ) - jc37 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hey, could you please review my recent edits to the article on Mark Pigott? I'd really appreciate it. RichBryan (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@RichBryan: Thanks for the award! Did you mean this and the previous removal on 10 Sept? Those are fine, and IMHO still acceptable after your declaration of interest. Or did you want me to review the sandbox page that WebSolEditor has been editing?

I was mostly interested in that the removal was appropriate, since I know many of those things to be untrue or only partially true. And, even where partially true are not necessarily attributable to Mark Pigott personally. I'm not involved in the sandbox page, though I'm aware of it. RichBryan (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the deletion I'm referring to that I wanted your opinion on. [3] RichBryan (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was fine. WP:BLP would require reliable sources for such allegations. Although the edit vaguely gave Glassdoor as the source (without a specific link, but it might be possible to trace the page), that would not be a WP:RS – it's more like a private blog or social media, and therefore not acceptable as a citation. Although some bios with positive assessments have links to the article Glassdoor, those all seem to have been reported in mainstream media. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, shall I block your old "user2" account so that you will not be accused of operating multiple accounts? Would you have any objection if I link it to your new user page?

Yes, go ahead and block or disable the old user2 account. RichBryan (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And, link to my personal account, rather than the user2 account which was intended to be for work-associated edits, but I decided I didn't need or want separate accounts. RichBryan (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

When I reinstated edits to Talk:Mark Pigott, I forgot that you were the same editor as "user2".

As Paccar984 was used to edit the article, we should keep a COI disclosure about that account, but as "user2" has not, I agree that there is no need for a disclosure on that one. I propose to block Paccar984 too – OK? – Fayenatic London 12:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's using the Paccar984 anymore. Sure, go ahead. Thanks for the advice. RichBryan (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, before you do that, what impact would that have on WebSolEditor's work on the sandbox? RichBryan (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No impact, the page can still be edited by other accounts. However, I might as well move it to WebSolEditor's sandbox. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, could you review my proposed revision to Talk:Mark_Pigott in my sandbox User:RichBryan/sandbox. — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign. RichBryan (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question

Dear Fayenatic, could you please have a look at the procedural discussion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_27#Category:French_priests. I'd say, technically DexDor is probably right, but a reasoning like this would make it nearly impossible to ever post a downmerge proposal again. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)