User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive17

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Fayenatic london}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

• 9 Sept 2006 – 20 Aug 2007
• 21 Aug 2007 – 17 Apr 2008
• 18 Apr – 31 Dec 2008
• 2009 • 2010 • 2011
• Jan–Jun 2012 • Jul–Dec 2012
• Jan–Jun 2013 • Jul–Dec 2013
• Jan–Jun 2014 • Jul–Dec 2014
• Jan–Jun 2015 • Jul–Dec 2015
• Jan–Jun 2016 • Jul–Dec 2016

Devsahayam Pillai

Please, explain why you keep adding "according to Catholic tradition" to his Biography. Thank you.Mwidunn (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

@Mwidunn: I explained this to you before (see my reply, now archived at User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive16#Devasahayam_Pillai). I also referred to the article talk page in my edit summary when I reverted your edit. Please see the discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Devasahayam Pillai – especially the sections "POV" (this abbreviation refers to WP:Neutral point of view) and "Unreliable sources", but the rest of the page confirms that sensitivity is needed over this topic.

If you read these links and still don't understand, please explain what in particular you find hard to understand. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC redlinked user categories

As a regular closer of CFD discussions, you've probably seen a lot of user categories been nominated recently, part of them were speedily deleted. I don't know if you've also seen this follow up RFC about the issue? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterside populated places

Be aware that User:BrownHairedGirl, after demanding that I have the categories put back, has now ordered the bot to put everything back. I'm in the middle of writing up an ANI thread, and as the use of admin tools to edit-war against community consensus at XFD is worse than the use of admin tools to edit-war against a unilateral admin decision, an arbitration request will soon be filed. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and WP:ANI#BrownHairedGirl and categories for the requests for sanctions on admin rights and on editing rights, respectively. I've listed you as involved in the arbitration case because she's objected to my following your instructions in the CFD close. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notifications. Sorry I set you off on that course. I'm afraid I was not able to be supportive of your subsequent actions. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps re Waterside populated places

Hi Fl

Sorry that the CFD/S thing exploded so messily. When I lodged my procedural objection, I didn't see most of that coming.

Anyway, AFAICS the ANI discussion (permalink) has run its course, and there seems to be unanimous support[1] for your proposal to open CFD with an option to rename the lot as originally proposed, and another option to revert them all the previous titles.

I'd be happy to help put that CFD together, if you like. Or if you prefer to do it yourself, that's fine too -- but the offer is there. Just lemme know if you'd like help, or like me to do it all.

We also seemed to agree at CFD/S that there should be some sort of discussion on the use of CFD/S as a followup to CFD. My inclination is to do it as an RFC at WT:CFD. How does that sound to you? And would you like to collaborate on drafting it?

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of nominating the parent category and saying "this is an attempt to rename the tree" was that the whole list was too big to tag everything manually, and I don't have any experience with AWB or bot operation. If you have experience with either one of those, you're free to tag them and nominate them. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, both CFD and CFD/S require tagging. No way round that.

If you don't use AWB yourself, you can ask at WP:BOTREQ. And if you're unsure how to do that, ask for help at WT:CFD. If you like, ask me, and I can put together a tagged list in minutes using AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BrownHairedGirl: Ordinarily I'd expect Nyttend to do the CFD, hence I asked him earlier, thinking that he had (belatedly) tagged the ones listed at WP:CFDS. Apparently I was wrong on that. So yes, please go ahead with the CFD.

As for the discussion on the criteria: yes please to both questions. Should it be at WT:CFD? The C2 speedy criteria were moved from CSD to the CFD page a few months ago by Pppery; I can't immediately find the brief discussion that justified the move, but I can't help wondering whether that should be reverted, because C2 is also used for merging. How about holding the discussion at WT:CSD anyway? – Fayenatic London 23:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft CFD

Hi again @Fayenatic london and Nyttend:

Sorry for the delay, but I have now created a draft of the procedural CFD, at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox4 (permalink).

Please can you both check it out, and tell me if it is OK?

Note that I have made the first option the completion of the Dec 8 CFD. Option B reverts that decision. My intention is that this order retains Nyttend's first mover advantage.

I have reproduced the Dec 8 rationale verbatim. Since this is a procedural nomination, I don't want to alter that even if Nyttend feels like updating his proposal ... simply because any changes would require explanation which would add verbosity about the procedure, of which there is enough already. If Nyttend has more to add, that can be done in the comments section.

If we have reached agreement, I would like to post the CFD shortly after midnight, to get it at the bottom of the daily CFD page. ('s purely a technical concern: the large collapsible list causes some inconvenience if it's not the bottom item.) I will of course do all tagging once the nomination is listed.

Look fwd to hearing from you both. Please ping me in any reply, so that I don't miss it.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Very good. I didn't know about the bottom-of-the-page consideration.

Often when taking a speedy nomination to full CFD, we'd collapse a copy of the discussion from CFDS; if we do so in this case, I'd omit all the procedural points, which leaves only David Eppstein's post and most of Oculi's. Alternatively, we could simply ping those two editors at CFDS when adding a link there to the full CFD. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london:, yes collapsible messes with section links. The page loads, positions itself at the section header, and then when a collapsible section above that header collapses, the section header zooms off the top of the screen. By having the collapsible section at the bottom, there's no jump. Not a big deal, but it's a minor irritation from some, so I'd prefer to avoid it.

I'm a bit wary of editing any discussion before including it, because that can be misinterpreted. So while there is good reason not to burden CFD with the procedural stuff, I'd prefer to post all or nothing. To avoid clutter, I suggest just linking to it, and pinging David Eppstein & Oculi. Is that OK with you and Nyttend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK by me. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care; I'm not participating in this issue any more. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go ahead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's up. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Populated_waterside_places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, BrownHairedGirl. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RFC

Hi again FL

Now that the CFD is underway (with a welcome increase in participation), I have made a start on the RFC. The first draft is at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox4 (permalink).

I have tried to explain the technical and policy background so that it makes some sense to those who have the good fortune not' to be CFD anoraks. <grin>

Then I have left a slot for us each to write a brief statement-of-case. Obviously, the pro-speedy statement of case should reflect your views alone, but everything above that is intended to be a neutral explanation which we can both support.

However, I dunno how well I have done on making that either neutral or comprehensible. I am very keen that the intro should be something we are both stand over, so please feel free to edit my sandbox to hack it about, rewrite it, or whatever.

What do you think so far? Is there anything usable there? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Wow, thanks once again. I was thinking of just posting a brief proposed addition to C2C, but this gives the full background for people not already intimately acquainted with CFD. Now that you have prepared it, yes, let's use it. I'll add to it where you have suggested, when I have some good thinking time. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FL. I'm glad that you find it usable. Are you satisfied that my background intro is neutral?

Take your time on the pro-speedy rationale. No rush.

BTW, it occurred to me that rather than adding another sentence to C2C, any CFD-followup criterion would be better done with a new label. (I think that the next free slot would be C2F). That way, it will be easier to track usage, and it would avoid any one criterion getting too verbose. Whaddaya think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see whether we end up with something concise enough to add into C2C. If not, then C2F it will be. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again FL

Sorry to be a nuisance, but just wondering if you had a chance to have a go at wording your rationale for the RFC? If it helps, I could do a first draft for you to hack about as you see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been unwell and busy IRL. I've not forgotten... – Fayenatic London 20:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request declined

Hi Fayenatic london. The Arbitration Committee has declined the BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin: Fancy that! Anyway, thank you. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Kevin, and thanks Arbcom. I am relived that we don't all have to waste time on a full case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biblia Hebraica Quinta

Dear Fayenatic, I forgot this link: Genesis 1. This is the edition of the Leningrad Codex. Very professional explanations about the Hebrew words. Avraham Tal's edition also translate the Hebrew words? Doncsecz^talk 17:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy, I just read about it at Biblia Hebraica Quinta; but no, it does not translate the Hebrew into other languages, it is only in Hebrew. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wanted to know. Doncsecz^talk 10:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to upmerge Category:20th-century reformed church buildings

I have moved this proposal from Speedy to Full Discussion ; seeWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_31#20th-century reformed church buildings Hugo999 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Rape of Palestine

Uh, thanks, I guess. I don't have anything to do with that page and haven't ever edited it, so I'm not sure why you're informing me if its issues. Have I missed something? Two Bananas (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]