User talk:Necrothesp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


James C. King[edit]

Hi.
On May 12, 2014; you deleted James C. King. The log says "G8: Redirect to a nonexistent page". But I quite didnt understand the reasoning. I am currently working on the article for King. It would be appreciated a lot if you could tell me in plain English why the page was deleted. Thanks, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It was four years ago, so I don't remember it at all, but I imagine I selected the wrong reason by mistake. However, there was never an article at James C. King. It was only a redirect to the James King disambiguation page. So I probably deleted it as being pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am very glad to see you have gained back the access to your account. Face-smile.svgusernamekiran(talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about MOS:JOBTITLES[edit]

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard Durning Holt[edit]

Hi, I'm confused with your move of Richard Durning Holt. Sir Richard Holt, 1st Baronet is most certainly not his common name. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Sir Richard Holt was his common name. He is most commonly referred to as Sir Richard Holt in sources; far more commonly than by his full name. But as there is more than one Richard Holt we disambiguate using his title, as per usual (WP:BARONET). It is not usual to disambiguate using middle names that were not commonly used (WP:MIDDLENAME). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Really? I'm surprised. I can understand that the Durning bit may be less common but the last time I looked his title wasn't actually used that much and the Durning bit was used far more. (I'm not related to the family at all but it is well-known and referred to in the area.) Regardless, I'll live with it - just more WP specious bollocks, really, and I'm fed up of it, as with categories and dabs. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
His obits and other references in The Times certainly refer to him as Sir Richard Holt. But if you really think his middle name was commonly used in reality then I'm happy to move it back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you commented on a requested page move for Management information system. I'm working on a school project to research and contribute to a page so I'm not very well versed with editing Wikipedia articles. I agree because that Management information systems should not be capitalized due to the sentence case that is normally used, but the change was referring to the plural nature of the title. There is a "Management Information Systems" in that case which is why I referred to it as such. Ideally, the title of the article should be "Management information systems". The talk section around that move included one addition criticizing my experience, my response, followed by your comment about the letter case of the new title. Can you help me understand what I need to do to get this page moved correctly? Lucasf926 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mo Legend69 molegend619 12:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Legend69 (talkcontribs)

Deletion discussion about Chris S. Sims[edit]

I noticed that you are a frequent contributor in deletion request discussions about D&D topics. There is an ongoing discussion about the notability/deletion of D&D designer Chris S. Sims (game designer). I wanted to ask for your expertise/participation. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher O'Neill‎[edit]

Hi I am astonished that as an administrator you would leave this kind of ad hom comment; [1]. You made a serious mistake when claiming that I must have a republican agenda as I am anything but, as I said I am a royalist but I do not believe that simply marrying into a royal family is a guarantee to notability. there is a very strong probability that there will be sufficient coverage to guarantee notability but as per WP:INVALIDBIO we cannot assume that they are notable. You may not have noticed but I also !voted keep. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also if you check out my user page and you will see that we share a common background in some aspects. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
And just in case there is any doubt in your mind about my loyalties if you look hard enough you will find a photo of me on wikipedia that should seal it! Anyway I won't labour the point any more suffice it to say that being accused of being a republican ruffled my feathers! ;o) cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Please reread what I actually wrote. I certainly didn't accuse you of having a republican agenda. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mo Legend69 molegend619 09:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Legend69 (talkcontribs)

Geoffrey Dear, Baron Dear[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed Kt from Lord Dear’s post-nominal on the infobox? My understanding is that a Knight bachelor when ennobled was entitled to use Kt to show that rank. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, iComputerSaysNo 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Only in very formal documents when honours are spelled out in full instead of being abbreviated (and then as "Knight"). It is certainly not common practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

hohum[edit]

Have had a conversation at the Indonesian noticeboard - in most cases ten year old stubs with long standing tags with no sources or refs added in that time - just a little frustrated with the cast mass of stubs in the Indonesian project - that even if they are notable, there is no one editing to prove that JarrahTree 15:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

in fact there have been conversations in the last ten years that villages with no notability or references easy to hand other than the central statistics office - should be deleted and move up to the next level of administration - districts or whatever. However the editors who have been involved have long stopped editing from what I can tell JarrahTree 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a longstanding practice that we consider settlements to be notable, no matter where they are or whether or not they're stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
maybe - but then that is probably practice but when the random nature of adding every damned village in indonesia, I am sure that a project level consensus would say stuff that. JarrahTree 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
And would be ignored because it's only a project! This is a Wikipedia-wide practice. Projects have no official standing. We have articles, many of them stubs, on villages in every country in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
no further comment on this from me - have a nice whatever JarrahTree 16:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

53rd Anti-Aircraft Brigade[edit]

Is it a disambiguation? It should be rewritten.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Torrens Parade Ground[edit]

I see you added Torrens Parade Ground to Category:Art Deco architecture in Australia and wondered why. Yes, the building has "Art Deco decorative elements", but it also has "simplified classical motifs", and no-one is saying it is of simplified classical architecture. Please explain why you feel it is of Art Deco architecture. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The building appears to be clearly Art Deco in style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Really? You surprise me. There are many Art Deco buildings around Adelaide and it doesn't look even vaguely like any of them. If you can find a source that supports your point of view I'll go away and stop bothering you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Remove it if you want. I really can't be bothered to debate the issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • User talk:Pdfpdf. It's a a very deco design. shallow vertical pilaster, typical art deco window and under-window design, perfectly symmetrical, not literalist classical elements. And there are excellent sources to support this. However, I do want to say that this is NOT the appropriate place for this discussion; you ought to have taken this to the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Wow! you figured out a truly apt name for that page. (while the rest of us just spun our wheels) E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving a page discussion[edit]

Could you see a page move discussion relating to WP:NCPEER at Talk:Iain McNicol? --Editor FIN (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring discussion re. User:FF-UK[edit]

Hello Necrothesp, I thought you would be interested to know that I have reported User:FF-UK for edit-warring on Mains electricity by country (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FF-UK reported by User:CplDHicks2 (Result: )), but really this is encompassing all of his past behaviour. I noticed he was his charming self in a discussion at Talk:Amazon (company)/Archive 2#Survey about 10 months ago. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks. CplDHicks2 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Amesbury School[edit]

This article is a blatant advert for a non notable, fee-paying primary school. Only only one of the building - which is now hardly ever used - as you corerectly pointed out, is notable as a listed building. This does not mean 'the school' is notable. As sympathetic as I am to school articles, we don't tolerate advertising. Stub it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I see little advertising on that page. It needs a bit of a rewrite, as do 90% of school articles, but it's definitely not an advert. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Rv your move[edit]

[2], because RM at talk superceeds individual choices. I'd have preferred Mürwik Naval Academy myself, TBH. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-examining it, I would actually agree with you, although Mürwik Naval School would actually be a better translation. I didn't notice the RM, but given nobody actually contributed to the discussion the move shouldn't really have been made at all! This "Foo at Foo" stuff is very counterintuitive and weird-looking in English and shouldn't be used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson's OBE and smallcaps[edit]

At Gillian Anderson, you set the size of the post-nominals back to 100%. My understanding of MOS:SMALLCAPS and MOS:POSTNOM is that they should be in small caps. No? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No. This is merely a preference expressed by the creator of the template, which they will not accept is not standard practice. Unfortunately, because the template is widely used "as is" this has become a normal look. However, generally in "real life" postnoms are seen at the same font size as the preceding name. There is nothing in any Wikipedia guideline that requires them to be at 85%. Or rather, there shouldn't be. The clauses at MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:SMALLCAPS were added by an editor without discussion or consensus. Thank you for alerting me to them. I have removed them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like something that should be removed from the MOS boldly, especially when a template has been displaying it that way for a long time. If you think it's not an issue, why not also change the template to default to 100% also? I'm sure that will provoke a discussion among those who care Face-smile.svg —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability policy[edit]

I appreciate the section on your userpage re notability. My experience is similar, and more troubling is that I know many new editors have been discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia as a result. I tend to think that long term, based on this and editor statistics, Wikipedia is doomed due to "the bureaucrats... taking over". But since the contents are free, they will live on in whatever it is that eventually comes to replace it. See the spiel on my userpage for more. ··gracefool 💬 09:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OberRanks de-proddings[edit]

Hi Necrothesp, I noticed that you de-prodded three articles created by now-banned User:OberRanks (Bolko von Schweinichen, Gau badge, and SS Personnel Main Office). that had been prodded in the course of the large, community-driven cleanup program started after his ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#OberRanks and fabricated sources for background). I have to say that I find de-prodding such articles without then taking responsibility for them and cleaning them up highly unhelpful. All material added by OberRanks, including material that may look well-written and plausibly sourced on the surface, has to be presumed falsified unless proven otherwise. It's fine to save such articles from deletion if you are prepared to put in the legwork of re-writing and re-sourcing them. But simply removing the prod and letting the falsified contents sit there unchanged is really not acceptable. And please don't go telling me now that the rules of the Prod process allow you to do that – I know that perfectly well. What I'm asking you to do here is not just to act within the letter of the law, but to act responsibly. Which, unfortunately in these cases you didn't.

In the case of Bolko von Schweinichen, I have now stubbed the article back to the one sentence that I found was reliably sourcable. This will probably all still have to go to AfD, as there clearly is no sufficient biographical coverage establishing notability (all I found was three or four sources that just barely confirmed his existence, in one sentce each). And I have to say I very much resent you forcing me to waste my time doing this – we have hundreds of OberRanks articles to clean up, and it's never going to happen if the few of us who are currently willing to wade through this ugly mess are forced to spend this amount of time on each. Fut.Perf. 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the obsession with prodding umpteen articles on the Nazis to be disruptive and not at all helpful to Wikipedia. Yes, some are cruft. But some, like these, are not, whoever may have created them. Discretion is required in prodding, and in these instances I do not believe it has been used (I was particularly gobsmacked that such a significant institution as the SS Personnel Main Office was prodded). Comments by some members of the little coterie who are involved in doing this would almost suggest a desire to eliminate any mention of the Third Reich from Wikipedia as much as possible and glee in such deletion, which does a disservice to an encyclopaedia and is not in the spirit of the project. I'm afraid I would have to say that if you resent the work caused by my deprodding then maybe you should examine the articles more closely before they are prodded. I could also say that I resent the waste of my time constantly having to go through the prod categories (which I regularly do) due to irresponsible prodding. If I remove a prod I only do so because I genuinely believed it has been misapplied. Prodding is not for cleanup. It is not for cases of IDONTLIKEIT. It is for uncontroversial deletion of cruft and blatantly non-notable articles. Here I believe it has been misused. I also have to say that I find the suggestion that I acted irresponsibly insulting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
You are quite seriously misreading the situation. This is not about eliminating articles about Nazi Germany. It's about eliminating articles written by one particular fabricator, and given the nature and amount of his falsifications, summary deletion is currently the only feasible mode of cleanup. If you are going to continue sabotaging these efforts, enabling the abuser, Arbcom input might have to be sought, after all. Fut.Perf. 15:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of why you are doing this. I am suggesting that you need to consider what you prod and not get sniffy when another editor deprods for a good reason. And I am not misreading the situation at all. I have read comments from one of your oppos in this project that definitely suggest they would like to eliminate most Nazi material from Wikipedia. I am not sabotaging any efforts. I have deprodded a handful of articles that I believe are valid, as is my right. Do you really think that throwing threats around is worthy of an admin? I really find your arrogant tone against a fellow admin and highly experienced editor to be exceptionally insulting and would ask you to consider what you write. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I will continue treating you as you deserve. Yes, de-PRODing is your "right" – but if you then walk away idly leaving the horseshit festering in those articles, then you are just as much personally responsible for the remaining falsifications as the abuser who first put them there. If you feel there's a valid article to be written, then do the right thing and write it. Fut.Perf. 15:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no more patience with your unpleasantness and arrogance. This conversation is over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

George Davies (pacifist)[edit]

I would like to propose that this article be renamed - either as 'George M. Ll. Davies' (my preference); or alternatively by reverting to the original name 'George Maitland Lloyd Davies'. I have explained why on the article's talk page. Very briefly, the subject of the article was (and is) generally known by one or other of these names - I think there is a majority practice (which included the man himself !) in favour of the shorter version - George M. Ll. Davies. What do you think ? Kind regards, Alan Griffiths Gwedi elwch (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong emigrants to England[edit]

Please note that "Hong Kong emigrants to England" includes British Citizens of Hong Kong died before 1997. -- hoising (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. However, putting a cat into a supercat does not mean that every article within that cat has to fall into the supercat, only that the majority do. Hong Kong is obviously a complex case, but I think it's entirely reasonable for it to be in this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Nanjing Massacre[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just want to tell you[edit]

That this is an amazing thing, thank you for working on it.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's a never-ending work! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It must really be. I look forward to when you feel ready to post it in mainspace!★Trekker (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Necrothesp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rose Hill School, Alderley[edit]

Shouldn't this be Rose Hill School, Gloucestershire instead per WP:UKPLACE? I thought we usually only use the settlement if it is a town or city, not a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Bethany School, Goudhurst as Goudhurst is only a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the intention of WP:UKPLACE actually. Personally I don't have a problem with using villages as disambiguators. And we'd surely have to make an exception for buildings like churches anyway? I don't see any real problem with schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll tag Category:People educated at Rose Hill School (Alderley) and Category:People educated at Bethany School (Goudhurst, Kent) to mach the current article locations. For churches, yes they are generally disambiguated by settlement, even if a village but I though for other types of places, generally the county if sufficient, but I'm fine with either at the moment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Terry stop (Wikiproject Law Enforcement)[edit]

Hi Necrothesp, I'm contacting you since you are listed as an Assistant Coordinator at the Wikiproject Law Enforcement page. This is in reference to Terry stop. A lot of work has been done on it recently. Currently your project lists it as a "start-class" with no rating on your project's importance scale. If you don't mind, can you reassess the page and update the template on talk:Terry stop. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bishop's Stortford College[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bishop's Stortford College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bishopsstortfordcollege.org/176/history. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reyk YO! 10:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Bishop's Stortford College[edit]

Thanks for just wheeling in without even the courtesy of consultation, and with an objectionable edit summary. You are right of course, this promo, largely by COI editors without a singe WP:RS is just what makes Wikipedia so respected for its high standards Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted it about an hour after the notice was slapped on it! Not a lot of 'consultation' or 'courtesy' there, was there? I created the article, which is clearly on a notable topic, long ago when our referencing standards were far less developed. And no, I was not responsible for the copyvio. Common sense would dictate the removal of the offending material, not the entire article. Doing the latter without any attempt at editing is leaning towards deletionism, which is one of the other banes of Wikipedia. All it needed was a bit of deletion or paraphrasing of the history. As I said, it wasn't hard! Apologies if you took offence at that, but the deletion of articles on clearly notable topics for no good reason is one thing that really irritates me about Wikipedia. As to reliable sources, it actually has two (yes, the school's own website is an RS for information about the school), so I'm not sure what you mean there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Much of the text is written by at least three COI editors, one blocked, and it's larded with unsourced promotional claims. I'm not aware that articles are kept just because the topic is notable regardless of any other problems, and I did post an explanation of my action to GF editor DuncanHill, as a matter of courtesy. Anyway, I've said my piece, and obviously I'll walk away from this article, which I imagine will retain its obvious problems indefinitely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course they are. That's why AfD is for non-notable topics, not poor articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ranks[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback on my edits. I apologise for any inconvenience caused, if any, as I'm quite a noob here on Wikipedia xD. By the way, I've noticed you've been following a lot of my edits. Thanks for your hard work.

Cheers, Itzsdgyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzsdgyyy (talkcontribs) 13:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of the articles on ranks, so I spot changes on my watchlist. No inconvenience. Keep up the productive editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know anymore.[edit]

Hello, I noticed an IP edited a page accusing you of being a "warring family member" here Kb03 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kb03: Thanks for the heads-up. Not guilty! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The three Governors[edit]

There are only three remaining "Governor" articles currently on Wikipedia (and no "Senator" articles, although there are about 46 "Mayor" articles). I just submitted an RM at Talk:John Atwood (Assistant Governor), and your comments on that are welcome. I am also planning to do something about the other two as well – they are Nicholas Cox (Lieutenant-Governor) and William Codrington (MP and Gibraltar Governor). If you have suggestions about what should be done with them, you're hereby invited to provide the suggestions, to file your own RMs, or to make speedy moves. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved both the latter to "British Army officer", as most appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees 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/Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nickname shortcut[edit]

I couldn't figure out what I had done wrong after trying to link to it in an edit summary as I done dozens if not hundreds of times, but WP:NICKNAME and MOS:NICKNAME frustratingly go different places. Thanks for correcting my error! JesseRafe (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

They do. Confuses me sometimes too. No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic[edit]

I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Could you please explain what I have done wrongly here?--86.29.222.228 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Church of Sweden cathedrals has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Church of Sweden cathedrals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Falling Sickness (band)[edit]

Notice

The article Falling Sickness (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SITH (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Falling Sickness (band) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Falling Sickness (band) 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/Falling Sickness (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. SITH (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

James Lind[edit]

Hi, wondering why you removed the Naval surgeons category from the article in James Lind?[3] -- Euryalus (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see you created a subcat. One issue though: the Royal Navy Medical Service was formalised in 1832, and naval surgeons whose careers were entirely prior to that date (Lind, for example) weren't members of it. Is it accurate to include them in this subcat when it post-dates them? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't actually create the cat. It was already in existence. I just added it to the new cat. Yes, I think it's reasonable to use that category for all Royal Navy surgeons and medical officers, even those who served before the formal creation of the service. We have done that in the past and it allows all RN medical officers to be in the same category, leaving Category:Naval surgeons for all countries. Although maybe it should be renamed Category:Naval doctors to cover all eras and countries? Although RN MOs still use the historic prefix no matter what their specialty, "naval surgeon" is a rather archaic term usually associated with the age of sail and most naval doctors these days aren't actually surgeons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Article deletion…?[edit]

Could I please ask for your advice? Could you look again at September_2,_1692_letter_by_Cotton_Mather, which you have already weighed in on, regarding the move request I submitted last week. I am increasingly concerned about the level of WP:OR in it and have encountered a lot of WP:OWNERSHIP issues when I've tried to edit the article. Upon further reflection, it's not clear to me that this is even worth an article. While the existence and general content of the letter is referred to in most current secondary sources about the Salem witchcraft trials (See the end of the Sources and Notability section of the Talk Page), the particulars of this specific physical manuscript is a non-issue to historians, but it seems to be solely the interest of the main editor. I am considering nominating it for deletion, but I've never done this before, and I suspect that with the WP:OWNERSHIP issues, the editor may really push back. I'd appreciate your input. Ogram (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Why[edit]

do you believe that the reader is better-served if the article 'bout Arts College railway station stays in a stand-alone bare-bones form? I can vouch for the fact of that station not receiving any coverage in any RS; ever. Why shalln't WP:NOPAGE be invoked? WBGconverse 07:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do. Railway stations are notable. I would invoke WP:STUB! Stubs are perfectly valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The question started with why. At any case, what about creating a list of all stations in the route with a line or two devoted to each entry pending which they can be mass-redirected? WBGconverse 10:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I maintain and will continue to maintain that all stations are notable and deserving of articles, whether they are stubs or not. And consensus clearly backs me up. I'm frankly mystified at the amount of effort some editors spend on attempts to get articles on sensible topics deleted. That's not what I'm here for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As I am mystified at the perpetual stupidity of a few persons. Ta, WBGconverse 11:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That was a personal attack. Any more like that and I shall report you. If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, please don't bother posting on my talk page again. Ta. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As was your statement I'm frankly mystified at the amount of effort some editors spend on attempts to get articles on sensible topics deleted. which fitted the definition of aspersion.
I came to your t/p to discuss whether there was any common ground to proceed (and more imp. to understand why you seek for standalone articles and believe the reader to better served rather than in a list where he can glance a lot of accompanying info). I did not come over here to hear about the motivations behind my effort.
Feel free to report me; as you wish. WBGconverse 11:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wondering why editors are expending effort deleting articles is not in the same category as directly calling another editor stupid. You're not worth the effort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. WBGconverse 11:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ages[edit]

I'm probably not doing this response correctly. I apologize.

It is indeed subjective. The article states Jean Baptiste became captain of the first rank at the age of "only" 32. How do you know that 32 was a young age for someone to become captain? This person lived in the 1700s/1800s. What was the life expectancy then? Maybe 32 was old. I believe simply putting that he was 32 is sufficient. The reader knows that Baptiste was 32 when he became captain. Period. But to write "only 32" is supposed to make the reader aware that this was an unusual accomplishment for a person in his early 30s. Again, how do you know that?

Also, can you please show me proof that "age xx" instead of "age of xx" is horribly (really, HORRIBLY?) colloquial? Why put a preposition when one isn't necessary? Genarians (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC) genarians

That may be a borderline one. But most of the others are not. Becoming Emperor at the age of 6 is very young. Becoming head of a pathology department at the age of 24 is very young. Graduating with a degree at the age of 13 is very young. This is common sense, not subjectivity. There is no problem with highlighting this fact. Also note that this is usually the only reason for highlighting their age in the first place. With the "only" bit removed the age, and sometimes the whole sentence, is rendered completely completely extraneous.
Because it's bad English! The sort of abbreviation that would be found on a text message, not an encyclopaedia! The preposition is necessary in decent English. I don't know where you come from, so maybe this is a WP:ENGVAR issue and your preferred form is colloquially common where you're from, but formal English is always written like this wherever you come from. In any case, it's already written like this. Why would you change perfectly good English? It suggests you think the original writer has written bad English and it should be changed to your preferred version, which is certainly not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question, I come from the Midwest section of the United States (Indiana and Illinois). I'm not sure where the authors of the following articles are from, but I would assume they are well-versed in writing standard English, as their articles appeared in the on-line versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the New York Times, both well-respected institutions.

Below are examples from Britannica.com articles where the author wrote "at age" instead of "at the age of". Also, you'll note that none of the ages are qualified with the word "only".

  • Helen Keller: "At age 14 she enrolled in the Wright-Humason School for the Deaf in New York City, and at 16 she entered the Cambridge School..."
  • Louis XIV: "He remained devoted to her; even at age 70 she was..."
  • Tara Lapinski: "At age three she began roller-skating classes..."
  • Michaela DePrince: "At age five she enrolled in the Rock School..."
  • John Locke: "It was to this already famous institution that Locke went in 1647, at age 14."
  • Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky: "At age four he made his first recorded attempt at composition..."
  • Pelé: "Pelé made his international debut in 1957 at age 16 and the following..."
  • Al Capone: "He attended school until the sixth grade, quitting school at age 14 after striking..."
  • P.T. Barnum: "In 1829, at age 19, Barnum married a 21-year-old Bethel woman..."
  • Katherine Johnson: "In 1937, at age 18, Coleman graduated with highest honours from West Virginia..."
  • Alexander Graham Bell: "At age 11 he entered the Royal High School at Edinburgh..."
  • Martha Jefferson: "The young widow returned to her parents' plantation home in colonial Virginia with her young son, John, who later died at age 3."

Here are a sample of New York Times articles where the author wrote "at age" instead of "at the age of". Again, please notice the absence of the word "only".

Genarians (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)genarians

So it's American colloquial style (yes, newspapers use colloquial style; surprised about Britannica, but there you go). However, most of the articles you have changed are not about Americans. See WP:ENGVAR. And it is not in any case acceptable to alter one correct style to another that you prefer. Please leave it as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why move James Richard Dacres articles?[edit]

You reverted a move of two articles, James Richard Dacres (1749–1810), and James Richard Dacres (1788–1853). Why? The revert is contrary to WP:PRECISION. Note both moves respective talk pages. --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Full dates are not generally used as disambiguators. Please see WP:NCPDAB for our standard form of disambiguation for biographical articles. It is not in any way contrary to WP:PRECISION. If it was, we'd use full dates for everyone who needs disambiguation (since few people with the same name have exactly the same dates). We do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to do with full dates, it's about you re-adding "Royal Navy officer", which does not distinguish them, which is against PRECISION. (If you want to change year-range to born year, fine, but since their professional lives overlap, it's not always a helpful distinction, but, yes, it's a distinction of some sort.) --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
And both David Bakers in the example in WP:NCPDAB are poker players. Using your logic, we wouldn't actually need to add their occupation to the disambiguator, even if there were other non-poker players called David Baker. We do, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Before I take it to AfD, re [4]. What is your reason to believe this is an "accredited degree-awarding institution"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It certainly says it is. What is your reason to believe it is not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Without references, it can be a hoax. And when it comes to paid-for WP:CORPSPAM, I don't have much WP:AGF to share. PS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camellia Institute of Engineering. Please note that I agree that all properly accredited educationals institutions are likely notable. My problem is that given the existence of degree mills, we should have evidence that an institution is properly accredited first. (Of course, if it meets GNG otherwise, it is not an issue). But assuming that all institutions are accredited unless proof is presented to the contrary is an invitation to scammers to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. ("Look, we have a Wikipedia entry, we are legit"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

HI @Necrothesp, Hope you are doing well. I am looking for Wikipedia expert freelancer. share your communication details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehaksharma096 (talkcontribs) 05:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sinhala vs Sinhalese[edit]

Hi Necrothesp! There is presently a debate (not a vote) on Talk:Sinhalese language to decide between "Sinhala" and "Sinhalese" in Wikipedia's article titles for the language. Please come and participate. Danielklein (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

wp:ITSACASTLE[edit]

Hi, i just revisited an old AFD linked from Talk page of an essay that I created, and I see your comment, which back then partly inspired me to create the essay (wp:ITSACASTLE) to address castles, museums, other public attractions which IMHO are pretty obviously usually notable. I went back because the essay is currently at MFD for deletion. Whatever happens with the MFD now, I do appreciate your original comment, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad my comment partly inspired you to write your eminently sensible essay. I completely agree, naturally. I used to agree with a lot of what BHG said, but lately she seems to have become ever more strident and insulting to those who disagree with her (I've been a recent target myself). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


St. Paul's, Deptford[edit]

Hi! I'm doing some cleaning up on the Deptford article, and noticed that St. Paul's, Deptford had been changed to St Paul's, Deptford per your move in 2014 (a little while ago now!). I've restored the dot, and thought you should know why. On Wikipedia the current consensus per MOS:STOPS ("Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening") and WP:CHURCH ("Dot (.) after St (St.) should be always used"), is that we use St. Paul's rather than St Paul's. If you come upon any other articles that have dropped the dot after St, you can restore the dot citing MOS:STOPS and WP:CHURCH. SilkTork (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nb, This, and ST's edits, are now under discussion at Talk:MOS. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope, this is completely wrong. We never use the full stop on British articles. Note the exception on WP:CHURCH. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Simon Stevens[edit]

The term "healthcare executive" is not used in the UK. Healthcare manager might be better. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Given he's chief executive of NHS England, I don't think you can say that's strictly true! I would have used manager if that was part of his title. I did consider it. But given his job title, "executive" seemed more appropriate. "Manager" strikes me as rather lower level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hacked?[edit]

Based upon the last two edits ([5] and [6]), it almost looks like your account was hacked. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed; Necrothesp has already been blocked and locked, and the Committee is aware. ~ Amory (utc) 16:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This is Necrothesp. It should be fairly obvious, I hope, that my account has indeed apparently been hacked by some malicious toerag with nothing better to do than screw up other people's work and efforts. Hopefully normal service will be resumed when this becomes obvious to those that can do something about it (which sadly does not appear to include me). -- 86.177.23.111 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp[edit]

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee; Bradv🍁 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp
Please email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org as soon as you are able. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Necrothesp, per the Arbitration Committee request at WP:BN, your administrator access has been removed. Please follow up with the arbitration committee as requested above. Restoration of administrator access requires a new request from ArbCom (or an RfA). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Next Steps[edit]

  • Necrothesp, once you return there are a few things that you have to do:
  1. ☑Y Contact trustandsafety@wikimedia.org by email about recovering your global account.
  2. ☑Y Request an unblock here (any admin will process following a steward unlocking you)
  3. Contact the enwiki ArbCom about the steps to recover admin acccess
Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 23:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So Necrothesp contacted me offline regarding them having regained control of their account and set a much more complex password. As a result of this, and the above comment, I have unblocked their account. Steps will need to be taken to regain the Admin privileges via the stewards. Canterbury Tail talk 11:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back, last step is to contact ArbCom and answer any of their questions, assuming everything is in order they will normally approve admin reinstatement via a motion, then they will request restoration at WP:BN. I've added advanced page moving access to you in the meantime, since it is your most common log action. — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion for restoration of sysop privileges[edit]

Hello, this is just to let you know I've posted a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions for Committee to vote on the restoration of your sysop privileges. ♠PMC(talk) 21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your response is requested[edit]

Hello Necrothesp, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_sysop_privileges_to_Necrothesp. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 03:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.

Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:

The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 03:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

Douglas ‘Doug’ Lewis CBE (Philanthropist & former Royal Navy officer) to Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

Hi,

I see that you have moved Douglas ‘Doug’ Lewis CBE (Philanthropist & former Royal Navy officer) back to Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) Please could you explain why this has been done.

I have been editing this after being tasked by the international NGO, the UK charity, the school and the individual himself. They were all happy with the changes I made. The first line now refers to "Commodore Douglas Lewis CBE". He has never referred to himself as Commodore since leaving the RN in 1997.

Please would you revert everything back to how I had lasted edited it. Thank you M-Geronimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Geronimo (talkcontribs) 15:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He is notable for being a Royal Navy commodore. He received the CBE for being a Royal Navy commodore. He is notable therefore under WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO #1 predominantly for being a Royal Navy commodore. He was in the RN for forty years; he has been a charity administrator (not a philanthropist) for fourteen years. This, to my mind, along with his rank and honour, makes his RN career more significant. The title you moved the article to is not how we title articles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)). We have our own editing, titling and notability standards, which are not influenced by outside factors. As to "being tasked by the international NGO, the UK charity, the school and the individual himself", please read WP:CONFLICT and note that it is not their choice how an article appears on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

wp:NRHPPROGRESS glitch[edit]

Hi, did I just see your username flash by, by your possibly revision-deleting a change to wp:NRHPPROGRESS page? I am trying to update it, ran a script to completion in this diff. Then did other tinkering, then re-ran script to what I thought was completion, but nothing shows. Maybe i blew up something? If you have any info, please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress#added a duplicate across El Dorado and Placer counties in California. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Corps of Army Music soldiers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Corps of Army Music soldiers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Where did I did that? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For example. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, those were 2 or 3, sorry! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about front page[edit]

can you explain why the front page gets blanked a lot and edits are reverted? ping me IsraeliIdan (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: Pathetic vandalism. If you mean this, my account was hijacked in order to vandalise the front page as only admins can edit it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Not what I mean, if you look at the edit history of the front page, multiple admins blank it a lot and then the editing is reverted. IsraeliIdan (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what I mean. Their accounts are hacked to do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You're saying that 3+ admin accounts are hacked every day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talkcontribs) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm lost now. The Wikipedia main page has only been edited a handful of times in the last few months. What exactly are you referring to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Prison officials has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Prison officials, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add citations for the post-nominals you are adding[edit]

Hi Necrothesp, information on Wikipedia needs to be cited, and may end up being removed if uncited. Please add citations for the post-nominals you are adding, such as on John Peter (critic). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

All in good time. All from the 2019 Birthday Honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Update: The fact that you didn't initially provide the ref for the article I mentioned was a happy accident, as it caused me to re-Google his name and I found a bunch of missing information which was mentioned in a recent news article. Also I noticed that his book is mis-attributed by all official data-sites (sigh), thanks to an error by the U.S. Library of Congress, so I've begun to try to rectify that by submitting a correction form to the Library of Congress. Anyway, thanks again for keeping tabs on the annual Birthday Honours. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert/Robin[edit]

Hi Necrothesp! I've just done a ctrl-f search of Hypocorism and I see that Robin is featured in both the "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "A short form that differs significantly from the name". It was originally only in the latter category (until added to the former last year) which I personally think is a better fit: it can't be both at the same time. Just a quick note to say I wasn't arguing for the sake of it! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think it falls into the definition of a common hypocorism as per the MOS. Many men called Robert are known as Robin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft article review[edit]

Hello Sir, I was wondering if you might consider reviewing a draft article I have prepared for a London City Corporation individual Dhruv Patel (community organiser). Thankyou ES (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishseva (talkcontribs) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

RSM and SM[edit]

Mate they're only explanations with sources, not rubbish as you claim. Kind regards Flag of the First Galactic Empire.svg Darth Tomotron Flag of the First Galactic Empire.svg (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they're meaningless rubbish. "carry the Chief of Army’s message down and across the ranks"! What the hell does that mean in plain English? Talk to people? "The RSM has leadership, discipline and welfare responsibilities of up to 650 officers and soldiers, as well as the maintenance of their equipment." So, just like any other officer or senior NCO then (and also completely inaccurate, as it suggests the RSM is personally responsible for leading those 650 people, not the CO or all the other officers to whom he is technically junior, and also for maintaining their equipment - very busy man, obviously!). As I said, meaningless management speak and badly written too. It's also a WP:COPYVIO given they're direct quotes. If you want to paraphrase and cut out the crap then do so, but please don't just copy and paste. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A thanks[edit]

Greetings, I am just giving a tip-of-the-hat and thanks for the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwent House. Also, I clicked on your user page link by accident, instead of this talk page, so read the comments under "Notability policies" while I was there. Starting backward with your "postscript": Please do not ever get too frustrated that you consider "why you bother contributing" to a point that might cause you to stop contributing especially if attacked. Admins are still "editors" and if someone is unaware of this, just wanting to create issues, or maybe just an idiot, that is on them. Your opinions as an editor clearly are a fundamental right of participating on Wikipedia as an editor in good standing and is not related to your admin work. The only stipulation (as far as I know) being that you not mix the two. You are transparent with your beliefs and if you close a discussion fairly that is all that can be asked. If you are "attacked" because anyone disagrees with you then they should be dealt with.
I have seen comments another admin made that caused me to start considering that I am not following the "letter of the law" to a point of detriment and now read your comments. I have likely been a little too good at AFD discussions so when I see a discussion, like the above mentioned article, I start looking harder. Some of the last few times that has not worked so well as some of the discussions still closed as "delete" but at least I tried. I feel I am an "inclusionist with provided sourcing" but that does not mean what is only listed on the article. Sometimes the state of sourcing on an article may not be very well presented on a notable subject which is why I think a before search (and during if someone else is the nom) is important. In the above case I can not imagine that there is not ample sources "out there", even if from possibly architecture books, that deal with the historical significance of these grand old buildings so have been considering just that, that I so far have just not located what is needed. The other side of the coin is that actual notability can not be argued against and this would be following the letter of the law since they are protected by statute. There is always two sides of every coin and we really should examine both. I think it is a checks and balance. A problem is that there appears to be an epidemic of world-wide back problems. To see the other side of a coin usually involves picking it up to begin with.
Anyway, even if I don't agree with an editor or an admin, it is their opinion verses mine and not something to fight about. I have learned that as an editor we can be passionate but not to a point of being so involved as to take it personally. I was saddened to read that you were attacked for you opinions. Someone else may think there were justifiable reasons but you are still an admin so apparently the more broad community does not agree. There are always those that will attempt to pick a fight "just for the fun of it". My advice: Don't back off from your opinions.
In case you may not have been told lately: Thanks for your contributions. Otr500 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I just do not know why there is a section of editors on here whose answer to anyone disagreeing with them is to attack and insult. One wonders if that's the main reason they visit. Neither do I understand why some editors love to try to delete articles on what seem to be clearly notable subjects. But anyway, thanks for your comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack Taylor (footballer, born 1924)[edit]

I've reverted the move and placed a hatnote instead, given there is no Jack Taylor (Australian footballer, born 1924). GiantSnowman 13:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Disambiguation doesn't work like this. The Australian footballer was born in 1924! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly what hatnotes are for - and you didn't even bother to fix the redirect! GiantSnowman 13:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. They are both footballers born in 1924, whether one has it in his disambiguator or not. Neither is more important than the other, whereas using the hatnote implies the English one is the more significant of the two born in 1924. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't mark non-minor edits as minor[edit]

Re: this edit: "When not to mark as minor changes: Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" (WP:MINOR). Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Which template or tag did I add or remove? I suggest you check the edit history properly before making such comments. I merely moved the entry to its correct position and changed the disambiguator to a more accurate one. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed 28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Trier Cathedral[edit]

After a move, please - if you don't have time for a complete clean-up - change all navboxes which have the name. Firstly, because redirects are not shown bold, secondly to find where links really need to be changed, - not in all the articles connected by a navbox only. I did it for you this time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've always believed that this is the purpose of redirects. It doesn't really matter if a link is direct or via a redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Joint Assault Signal Company[edit]

Please move Joint assault signal company back to Joint Assault Signal Company. It is in fact a peoper name see page 22 here https://archive.org/details/The4thMarineDivisionInWorldWarII/page/n21. The very first unit carrying that name was the 1st Joint Assault Signal Company of the 4th Marine Division,which was then attached to the 5th Amphibious Corps. All JASCO's were capitalized as they were proper names. The same is said for Combat Control Teams, now part of U.S.A.F. Special Tactics Squadrons. Thank YouOldperson (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a proper name. 1st Joint Assault Signal Company is a proper name, as that is the name of an individual unit. But joint assault signal company itself is no more a proper name than infantry company or artillery battery. It's a generic designator which was applied to a number of units. Note that the source you cite reads "several amphibian tractor battalions and the First Joint Assault Signal Company", where "amphibian tractor battalions" is not capitalised as it does not refer to a specific unit, whereas "First Joint Assault Signal Company" is as it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning and have no problem accepting your explanation, save that the term joint assault signal battalion did not exist until the formation of the 1st JASCO which was then assigned to the 4th MarDiv. Yes in a sense Joint assault signal company is analgous to infantry battalion, on the other hand it is completely different. Would you write Seabee battalion or seabee battalion. Combat Control Team or combat control team. A Combat Control Team is a specific U.S.A.F.unit of which there are a number. A combat control team could be anything, a headquarters communication function for instance. I submit if one would write "Joint assault signal companies were specialized units created during WWII in the Pacific theater to coordinate ground, naval and air fire." Then the non capitalized term would be correct, but we are talking about very specific Units, who had a limited lifespan, that lasted until June 6,1944. I see a difference and not at all analgous to say "infantry company"Oldperson (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd write seabee battalion and combat control team. These are not proper names unless referring to a specific unit. If referring to a specific unit like the 1st Joint Assault Signal Company then they are proper names and should be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing Ranks[edit]

Thanks for the note - if that's what "we've" decided, then so be it. Might want to revisit that, though. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Been revisited and discussed a number of times. Trust me, the apparent sarcasm is unnecessary. I used to capitalise ranks too when I started editing Wikipedia many years ago; everyone did. This was decided by the community, not unilaterally by me. We now don't capitalise anything that's not a proper name. No reason for ranks to be an exception just because the military have a bit of a mania for capitalising everything within sight. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@FiggazWithAttitude: Necrotesp,I fail to understand the reasoning and motivation behind your argument and action, unless it is simply a disgust and disapproval of all things military. For instance in the article Pig War,there is mention of General George Pickett, but further on it is mentioned that he was promoted to general (genral what? general screw up? general jerk?. To say he was a military officer would be proper, but not Military Officer.

Because military ranks,by and large are both adjectives and nouns (and nouns with many meanings), the useage of them in communications should be capitalized to show that they are military ranks and not just "general" nouns.Oldperson (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

private,corporal, sergeant, lieutenant,captain, major, general are all adjectives and nouns, And only by capitalizing them does

You misunderstand. It's not my "argument and action". It's something that has been thoroughly discussed and agreed by the Wikipedia community. And you couldn't be further from the truth if you think I have "a disgust and disapproval of all things military". I am a former officer in the British Territorial Army and a military historian. I have created or contributed to many of our articles on military and police ranks (I am also a former police officer and a police historian). I know what I'm talking about. A rank is capitalised if attached to a person's name, but not capitalised otherwise, in line with every other term on Wikipedia. We only capitalise proper names. A rank is not a proper name. Incidentally, they are not adjectives; they are only nouns. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen @oldperson @necrothesp - I did some further research and this will be my final bit on this - I've been retired now for almost as many years as I actually served. Yes, we did have a mania for capitalizing everything (and YOUR apparent sarcasm is also unnecessary, although it is funny. If we take ourselves too seriously here then what fun is it? We should all lighten up and have a sense of humor.) Anyhow, I checked "THE MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATIONS STYLE GUIDE" (https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/LCSC/MCU%20Communications%20Style%20Guide%2011th%20edition.pdf?ver=2018-10-09-142330-790) page 156 states "Capitalize military ranks when used with proper names, but not when the rank stands alone".

That's a good enough reference for me. I stand corrected and I thank you for prompting me to do the necessary research . FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WRAF[edit]

You're just wasting your time by reverting all those edits. The links are still correct as they are, even though the article has been moved to a different title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But the new title was incorrectly formatted ('-' instead of '−' in the date) and I didn't want all the links being redirected through such a poor title. Just the look of the thing. Normally I don't have a problem with redirects (and I've pointed out to other editors that it's unnecessary to edit the links in the past), but such a poor and unnecessary cut and paste destruction of a clearly primary and perfectly good article, followed by mass moving of all the links, irritated me! Surely it should have been obvious that this was a poorly formatted title, even if it may not have been so obvious to those not in the know that it should never have been messed around with in the first place? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

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


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of James Bassett (missionary) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Bassett (missionary) 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/James Bassett (missionary) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Fleming[edit]

I've relocated to 22 August and confirmed that is the date that the death was announced... GiantSnowman 12:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


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

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I enjoyed reading "Notability policies" and I can relate. I love the term, ""rules"-obsessed deletionists", and describes perfectly many editors I have come across. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Uniform section of the Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom article.[edit]

Regarding our recent edits to that section, you summarised that only City of London wear red and white. You can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sillitoe_Tartan#United_Kingdom that the three constabularies of the City of London Corporation use red and white chequers. I think the article could be edited to show that. What do you think the wording of that should be? --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think adding them to the main body of the article would be undue emphasis, as City of London are the only territorial force to use it. I suggest a footnote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. Should it be a footnote or perhaps the following words could be added and the other City of London constabularies, with a link to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Other_functions ? One possibility would be to leave it as it is.

I find it helpful to discuss ideas with others. Thanks again. --Dreddmoto (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Mark Bowden (United Kingdom)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mark Bowden (United Kingdom). Since you had some involvement with the Mark Bowden (United Kingdom) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bhrigu Nath Singh[edit]

Just saw your de-prod. It says he is chair of ICTACEM, a professional organization, but that's not the same thing as a named chair. Is there something else I'm missing? OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, look at his profile on the university website. Quite clearly says he holds a named chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

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

"Kate Ashley" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kate Ashley. Since you had some involvement with the Kate Ashley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

deprod; take to AfD?[edit]

On your edit...
Why? Could you please explain? I still don't get why it supposedly doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. (in accordance with G3 ...and G10)
(also, I'd like to note that I first considered just removing the statements that were not properly verified, or were contradicted by the sources cited. As is as is normal and proper, on Wikipedia ...but realised that, that would entail every single word, in the article)--85.228.52.251 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to support political posturing on either side. If you think it's incorrect then take it to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it is not Wikipedia's job to support political posturing on either side ...which is exactly why the article should be deleted. Every single word of it is heavily biased, and based on biased sources (very POV). Even the completely misrepresented source, which actually says much the opposite of what the article claims it does, is also biased (in the other direction). Not a single neutral source in sight. How is that not grounds for deletion by prod or even speedy deletion? Why would it require an AfD?--85.228.52.251 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Then what is your problem with taking it to AfD? Honestly, just do it. Prodding is only for uncontroversial deletion. Since I have no bias either way, my deprodding shows it may be controversial, since prodding is, in my experience, often used to attempt to delete perfectly reasonable articles that the prodder doesn't like (quite often for political reasons). If AfD decides it isn't worthy of an article, then it can be deleted. No skin off my nose either way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
... Taking a closer look at WP:PROD, it would seem that I simply had a bit of a misunderstanding, in regards to the statement "uncontroversial deletion". There is nothing in the article, whatsoever, that does not utterly violate multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I could not fathom how it would not uncontroversially qualify for deletion ...but that is not what is meant by uncontroversial, as it is about whether people would object. Fair enough.
I'll freely admit that I, very much, don't like the article, but that doesn't change the facts that I've stated above. Bias is to be taken into account, but it shouldn't completely overturn the rules, now should it? Still, as you say, a PROD isn't applicable here.
I'm still unconvinced that it shouldn't qualify for speedy deletion, but... I guess I'll do an AfD, then. Thanks for the response. It's nice to be reminded that there are places, like Wikipedia, where the rules matter and higher ups actually try to be helpful and have integrity.--85.228.52.251 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Though I find it kinda ironic that it is perfectly fine and encouraged to remove unverified statements and unreliable sources, which, for that article, would involve a complete removal of everything ...but that it should be so much more difficult and problematic to remove the article. Frankly, there should be a Speedy Deletion criteria, for articles with absolutely zero verified content.--85.228.52.251 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now done a, sadly a bit delayed, AfD, but... according to WP:AFDHOW, I am unable to complete steps II and III, of making a AfD, so it's a bit incomplete...--85.228.52.168 (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I have opened an AfD on your behalf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2016 Dürümlü bombing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Just in case you missed my response, that was immediately removed: Thanks. Nice to see that there are at least some admins, who are capable of civility and reasonableness.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration


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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nepalese people of Australian descent[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Nepalese people of Australian descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg nice one Shashwat2706 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Warg deletion discussion[edit]

Hi Necrothesp,

I didn't mean to change what you wrote; I thought I was striking out my vote and deleting the "keep."

Apologies for the confusion. Honest mistake.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If it was a mistake, no problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Necrothesp, Yes, entirely. I was looking at the wrong comment and thought I had !voted "keep" or "merge" (since I often !vote with two choices). Indeed, I hadn't. trout Self-trout Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

John Elliot (brewer)[edit]

Missed the FRS... good catch. Onel5969 TT me 21:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We can continue this on the talk page[edit]

People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages intended to name people by language than them speaking them, which isn't really English which you seem to know, so as according to South Africans's take on themselves Bantu peoples in South Africa does the same thing, naming them by language. Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples is not really meant to be taken as to be officiated but intended to be for this particular article to be of a proper title meaning, on what logical sense would it not be worth supporting for this particular objective if everything relevant to this subject is considered, opposing it would mean you're using insufficient information to form your opposition judgement. Untrammeled (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFirToBeFree
removed AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Grand Illusion RM[edit]

Hello. Well, I won't deny that I was unhappy with the consensus of the previous RM and this is indeed an attempt to start a fresh discussion. But I have my reasons. As everyone can see over there, a lot of opposing statements were made solely on the basis of the fact that the new page would need to be disambiguated. (And some others due to the consensus of the other RM in 2012, despite it being 7 years old.) Whereas according to Wikipedia policy, the original Grand Illusion disambiguation page has absolutely no reason to be named "Grand Illusion" since a primary topic clearly exists, which is, of course, the film. That is why this time I nominated the original disambiguation page alongside the film page. Would appreciate if you comment on that issue too. This is very clearly not the same discussion since this time it involves two pages and not just one. I have so far followed official procedures everywhere as was required. All I am trying to do is start a genuine conversation, which surprisingly very few editors have been interested in. Regards. Cinema Clown (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"positions are notable"[edit]

Hi, recently you deprodded an article that I had proposed for deletion, and in the edit summary you said "positions are notable". I am curious - I've not come across a guideline that says that - is there one? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Purely an opinion. But many ranks and positions like this do have articles. Not a candidate for prodding, I don't think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of an article for deletion[edit]

Necrothesp,

You deprodded the article Tilion back in November, and I have nominated it for deletion. I would like to hear your thoughts about this article at the articles deletion discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays text 2.png Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck[edit]

Ossë nominated for deletion[edit]

When I was nominating Ossë for deletion, I noticed that you deprodded the article back in November. I thought you might be interested in the discussion, since you deprodded the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ossë. Hog Farm (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

about James King architect[edit]

Hey, after i added James King (architect) to the James King disambiguation page, you revised it to show:

Because he served in the American civil war, we know pretty surely he was born before 1850 probably, but I don't know what the "fl." abbreviation means and I don't know where the year 1892 came from. I wonder first if you found any source (which I have not, nor has User:Zigzig20s who is also interested in improving the new biography article) identifying his birth/death dates? And what does "fl. 1860s-1892" mean, could you please explain? Thanks in advance! --Doncram (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Doncram, "fl." confused me when I first encountered it. It stands for "flourished", and I gather means these are the dates in which we have evidence the person was doing something. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Now I see a clickable template could be used (fl.) and that the latin word is Floruit. How would it be said aloud, I wonder? (Not expecting to ever be reading aloud such a list though.) And I see that Necrothesp must have gotten the 1892 year from checking the two linked works by James King; the later-built one was built in 1892 (that wasn't shown in article, until I just added it). Thanks, to both N and Schazjmd! --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad that's sorted out. Although I'm frankly amazed that people (especially those who write biographies) don't know what fl. means! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tanzanian people of Ghanaian descent[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Tanzanian people of Ghanaian descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

George Anderson (educator)[edit]

The School teachers from somewhere categories are used partly for place of birth but also for where they taught. Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Are they indeed? Where else do we have categories for where someone worked? The "from" categories have always been used only for where someone was born or brought up, not where they worked (or even lived) for a bit. Anything else makes a nonsense of the category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The category trees generally claim to be based on nationality, but they clearly aren't. Apart from any other consideration its very unusual for there to be any clear information about nationality. And all the academic categories are based on the institutions people worked in, as are most of the sport biographies. I think it's messy. Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the "people from" categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
"people from" categories generally include people from institutions in the place. And they are subcategories of People by nationality.Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disposals Board[edit]

Hi, just came across some of your lists of honours which I found particularly useful when I had just started the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. I have reached the conclusion that the "Disposals Board" was simply a more colloquial term for the same body (see here). Also just to say one of your red links in User:Necrothesp/List_of_Knights_Bachelor is now blue: Alfred Mays-Smith. Thanks for your excellent work. Leutha (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Great. The Disposals Board apparently already existed as part of the Ministry of Munitions (as some of the people honoured for serving it are in 1920, before the commission was set up), so presumably the name of the previous body continued to be used, as you say, colloquially for the commission. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Deprod of The Hampton Institute[edit]

Hey Necrothesp,

Can you clarify why that page was not able to be PRODed? I checked the logs and didn't see any previous PRODs or AFD discussions (also, please ping with a response).Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: I said "not a candidate for prodding", not that it wasn't able to be prodded. Prodding is for blatantly non-notable articles, hoaxes and pure junk. This did not fit into those categories. It is well-written and fully referenced. Prodding is, in my opinion, overused and should never be used for articles like this. "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion", as the first line of WP:PROD says. "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." AfD is the best way to propose articles like this for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Woods Johnston and Categorising people by where they were born[edit]

Please may I see where this is stated. I strongly disagree. Home births are truly a thing of the distant past - and, in any case, it is just where the mother happens to be at the time. We no longer live in small tidily organised villages. Anyway—If it is true the category should say "People born in". Don't you agree? Eddaido (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not everything on Wikipedia needs a written rule. As I said, it's what we've always done. No, I obviously don't agree or I wouldn't have readded the category. The place of a person's birth is important, even if they didn't live there for very long. In any case, Johnston was born in 1839, when home births were normal. He was a Londoner at least for the first few years of his life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll give you an example. Near where I live (in England) there is a major street named after a famous Australian politician and he is also commemorated at the local railway station. He emigrated to Australia when he was a young man. He's not at all famous for what he did in England. He doesn't seem to have even spent much of his life in this particular area, even before leaving for Australia. But he's still commemorated here because he was born here. So I really think that claiming where someone was born is not important is very far from being the truth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of red-light districts for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of red-light districts 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 red-light districts (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. – bradv🍁 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding William Morris (priest)[edit]

...Who is the other "priest"? I looked at William Morris (disambiguation) for a bit, and cannot figure out who else on there is a priest; I see bishops and ministers, but no other priests. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • William Placid Morris and Bill Morris (bishop) were/are also obviously priests! Just because a priest is promoted does not make him any less of a priest. Disambiguation must be unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • ...Ah, there that pesky "priest" word in the Placid article. (Didn't look at the latter article, but that's okay.) And great ... I see the redirect has been updated since I posted my original comment, which was what I was about to do after reading your response. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your deprod[edit]

I am curious as to your motivation here in removing the deletion proposal from an article which has long been completely unsourced and also impacts on the social standing and lives of a large amount of living people. ??? Couldn't you at least have listed it for AfD yourself? Please do! I am not good at all that formalia and often make all kinds of mistakes in it. Just reading all the rules makes my head spin. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to go to AfD. "impacts on the social standing and lives of a large amount of living people" is hardly a reason for deletion. Neither is being unsourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow! I've been here almost daily for many years now. Do not feel at home anymore. Don't seem to know what gives at all these days. Thought I knew the basics since about 2010. Basic "pillars" like mandatory sourcing & consideration toward living people seem to be all gone in 2020. What you wrote has me absolutely dumbfounded. Best wishes anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see how this impacts one jot on "consideration toward living people". Nobody whatsoever is being libelled or harmed by this article and I don't see how you could possibly suggest that they are being. As to sourcing, it is obviously preferable, but is not a reason to delete an article out of hand except for a biography of a living person. You will note that the equivalent Swedish article is sourced (although given I don't read Swedish I can't check what the sources say). As I said, if you think it should be deleted then take it to AfD, but I really do not think it's a candidate for prodding, although it almost certainly needs a rewrite. But being a poor article and being a candidate for deletion are not the same things. The only question is whether the topic is notable. And it clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It would be obvious to me that a published list of "precedence" considerably impacts on anyone not prominently positioned on it & even more so on everyone excluded.
I can find no equivalent Swedish article. Where is it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't. If someone feels insulted because they're not in the list of precedence then, frankly, so what? This is an encyclopaedia, not an exercise in self-aggrandisement or self-validation. If you're not on a list then you're not on it. The link has been deleted for some reason. As I said, if you don't think the article should be here then take it to AfD! No skin off my nose. But as I also said, lists of precedence in individual countries are, as far as I can see, clearly notable topics, whether the articles themselves are good or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is unsourced, and I see no reason to discuss it in any other light. Anyone can write a precedence article, to the benefit or detriment of anyone on of off it, and upload it to Wikipedia without any sources. It is my opinion after years of experience that such work cannot be allowed here. All my comments here including "impact" are due to the article being completely unsourced. You don't seem to care about that at all in yours. That amazes me to no end. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
You should know as well as I do that being unsourced is not a reason for deletion even at AfD, let alone a good reason to prod (apart from BLPs). The only criterion is notability of the topic! Quality of the article is irrelevant to notability. And how can the order of precedence in a country possibly not be a notable topic? Of course I would prefer it was sourced. But your objections seem to relate to people not being on the list when they should be. As though that was some kind of libel of them. Which is clearly ridiculous. I don't feel libelled because I'm not on an order of precedence! Neither should they. And neither should you on their behalf. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Your assumption ("your objections seem to relate to people not being on the list when they should be") is dead wrong. If you knew me, you'd know how wrong that is. No need to try to psychoanalyse me to any further detriment.
The only reason I am still commenting here at all is because I am absolutely dumbfounded that an administrator on English Wikipedia, contrary to WP:DEL-REASON #6 & #7, could say "being unsourced is not a reason for deletion". So according to you, we do not need to save articles from deletion by trying to find reliable sources, as I have done time and time again? There is no reliable source for that article. It's totally obsolete. No reliable source can even be found for something that may have been long ago in the way of a Swedish order of precedence. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
My assumption is based purely upon what you have written.
[#6] Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources... [#7] Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. The first is clearly not true; the second does not appear to be. How many times do I have to say the topic appears to be notable but if you don't think it is then take it to AfD because prodding is not appropriate? That is all I am saying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
What ever happaned to assuming good faith? You assume the worst again! Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify that article (by me and others) have failed. Thus, it should be deleted whether or not you think the topic is notable. I suggest you take it to AfD. That would work toward restoring my (good) faith in you as an administrator, and that of anyone else who might have peeked here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
How am I not assuming good faith? You seemed to be claiming that not appearing on the list (and/or appearing in the wrong place) was somehow degrading and affecting these people's lives ("impacts on the social standing and lives of a large amount of living people", to quote your first post here; "consideration toward living people" to quite your second; "It would be obvious to me that a published list of "precedence" considerably impacts on anyone not prominently positioned on it & even more so on everyone excluded", to quite your third; "impacts socially on the lives and stati of living persons", to quote your prod). If that's not what you meant then I apologise, but that's what I read and I think that was a perfectly reasonable reading of what you wrote. In fact, I fail to see how it could be read any other way.
Prodding is for the uncontroversial deletion of clearly non-notable topics. It is not for the deletion of topics which a reasonable editor would believe to be notable (like national orders of precedence). A prod can be deleted by any editor for any reason; I have given you a reason why I deprodded it. If you want it deleted because you think it is non-notable then it is your responsibility to take it to AfD, since I do not believe it is a non-notable topic. If others agree with you at AfD then that is fine. I really do not see your problem with doing this if you are so keen to get the article deleted. Instead you seem to prefer to argue with me about my reasons for a perfectly legitimate deprodding and suggest that I have somehow failed in my responsibilities as an admin because I have done something you don't agree with. This is, frankly, beyond me. And, I suspect, also anyone else who may have "peeked here". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Your comments are contrived & irrelevant. The article should be deleted because of the reason I bolded last time I wrote. I have never claimed that the subject per se is non-notable. I accept your apology and thank you. While you're at it you could aldo retract your absolutely horrifying statement that "being unsourced is not a reason for deletion". It's so non-Wikipedian that it bugs me to no end. People quit when admin's write things like that! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your ridiculous, overwrought allegations. "Your comments are contrived & irrelevant" can presumably be translated as "I don't agree with you and I don't think you have a right to say anything I don't agree with". The idea that such information would be unverifiable (if only in printed sources, which are perfectly acceptable) would seem unlikely; it would appear that there was even an online link when the article was written, although the link is unfortunately now dead. Of course being currently unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Not being able to be sourced after a decent search in both online and offline sources is a reason for deletion. They are not the same thing at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources.[8][9][10][11] So they do exist and the claims that none can be found are false. Is the current article a good one? No. Is the topic notable? Yes. Can the article be rewritten (by someone who reads Swedish) with decent sourcing? Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
All the sources you linked to are about former ranking which has not been valid for hundreds of years. The article is about a ranking which supposedly exists today, but does not exist today, and that totally and impossibly unsourced existence today is what WP:DEL-REASON #6 & #7 describe as reasons for deletion. There is no source for the content of the article as is reads now. That's why I suggested it be deleted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't stop it being a notable topic, as I've quite clearly said several times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
A new article about obsolete old rankings from times of yore in Sweden would be a notable topic (as per your sources) or the current totally unsourced article (for which no sources whatsoever exist) about a ranking which is made to look current but actually no longer is used, is a notable topic? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Feichtner[edit]

Hi, you aware of this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Feichtner (2nd nomination) Neils51 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

John Lewis (civil rights leader)[edit]

I am interested in your arguments. I will do my best to cite some of my statements in article talk page. The U.S. textbook claim should be easy except for the shelter-in-place here that puts libraries off limits. My own memories give ma a pretty good idea of where to look. In the southern states of the U.S., there was a public struggle even mention the cvil rights movement in textbooks. Textbooks in the U.S. are selected by each state's elected school board. There should be adequate news sources as well as a few scholarly sources. In some the language may be coded. I have used your talk page rather than clog the discussion, since anything I may wish to add will take time. So, only one more sentence—I believe improving the article is much more important than any move—thanks for your time. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)