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 deleted or 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)

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)

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)

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)