Je suis Coffee

User talk:Primefac

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

Poetics 13 and 14 contradiction[edit]

Hello Primefac: Could you state more specifically where in the declined article -- in its current state, after I made adjustments, there is a lack of encyclopedic, neutral writing? It was carefully assembled as a historical report of the discussion of a well-known problem, 500 years old. Are you saying that the list of various theories appear synthesized?

Or are you saying that some of the opinions are not notable enough? I find them to be objectively presented, and highly notable. Even the one by Sheila Murnaghan is very notable--Murnaghan is a famous classical scholar, of the University of Pennsylvania. Are you saying that her opinion is described in too much detail? Or are you saying that it is described from a non-neutral point of view. I tried very hard to make sure it is neutral.

How are you saying the views appear synthesized? They are all very different. There was some back-and-forth dialogue between them, but that dialogue is reported neutrally. It was a historic event, and notable for being many times documented.Cdg1072 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I believe I might understand why you declined that article. The article is forced to refer to scholars' opinions as if they are primary sources. For example, where it says that Dacier wrote this, and Lessing responded, and then Bywater responded to that. But there is no other way to report this history. There is no other way to report these scholarly events, as they occurred, because no secondary source has ever referred to all of them, as a history. I see -- in that sense, there is in fact no way to write this article for Wikipedia. It could only be done if the entire issue and its history were to be reported in some other source first. However, I disagree with this assessment. For there are issues, theories and debates written about in Wikipedia even though no one has talked about the academic scholars who are discussing the issue. I've already thought about this. If you had to have a secondary source for every academic opinion, then you could hardly write about any scholarly debate in Wikipedia. Is a famous academic debate impossible to write about in Wikipedia, just because it hasn't been reported already in some other encyclopedia?Cdg1072 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


As guidelines state,

"...the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

Similarly, I would suggest that no one would dispute the history of scholarship that took place on this contradiction. The history progressed from Dacier, to Lessing, to Bywater and Moles, and finally to Halliwell, Bouchard and Heath. These are all the most respected scholars within their field.Cdg1072 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Cdg1072, unfortunately our "stock" decline reasons don't always fit the draft that it is being used for, and I misremembered the rationale used in the one I presented you. The issue is, as you say, more that there are no secondary sources about this topic, you are the one collating all of the research and presenting it as fact. This fails our original research guidelines more than our "essay-like" guidelines, which is why I felt it was not appropriate for the article space. I would suggest getting input from WikiProject Philosophy, but they appear to be rather dead, and so I'm not quite sure what is needed to make it a suitable article. I have a lot of watchers of my talk page, though, and maybe they can offer some input. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's why I'd say you're wrong. Divide this submission issue into two parts. (1)--Earlier. All the history from Castelvetro to Halliwell is attributed, in this article, to Arata Takeda, from roughly 1550 to 2000 A.D. Or it can be easily done. Luckily, in 2016 Takeda published that history-- although he made one small mistake in it, that doesn't change the NAMES that he mentioned as authors of contributions. That much he got correct. So in the case of my topic, consider the 20th century and before. All the history in my submission is, in fact, attributed in the article to secondary sources. The part about Castelvetro, is already cited to Takeda's arrangement of the history (2016). One could even cite Lessing, Dacier, and Else from Takeda. But would that be necessary? After all, Lessing's theory has been the most influential. But note that Takeda does account for that history as well, he provides the list of earlier writers who endorsed Lessing on this issue--it's not my research. I can attribute that part to him. Unfortunately, Takeda confused Lessing and Dacier. But that doesn't change the names, again, and the history itself is therefore accounted for.

(2) Later history. Here you're engaging in a double standard, if you say that the most recent scholarship cannot be included without a secondary source.

It seems that you're saying, that since one guy wrote this Wikipedia article, the more recent theories are his research. On your rules, and your logic, how do you allow this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor

If you notice in that article, Benign Violation Theory has received an enormous amount of media attention. And OK, that can really be used to back up inclusion of Peter McGraw and his theory, and his notability. But there's no way that the other more obscure theories have such secondary backing. There are at least half a dozen in there that could not possibly have a secondary source.

Is there a need to attribute Moles' publication of his 1979 article to another? It is cited by Stephen Halliwell, Elsa Bouchard, and Sheila Murnaghan. It seems to me that many Wikipedia articles enter theories or contributions to an issue that date from the mid to late 20th century and afterward, all the time.

Consider then, the more recent history on this Poetics Contradiction. Is there a need to attribute the mention of Sheila Murnaghan to secondary source? You have a well-established issue, that's hundreds of years old. And Murnaghan is a prestigious, world-class scholar who presents an influential theory that many scholars have read. No one would dispute the fact that she has presented a theory. In my view, you're actually just holding this article to a standard that you're not applying in other cases.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll ask for a second opinion at AFC. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'll try to put in more references to Takeda, as the main source of the history. Without him the topic possibly would not have worked for Wikipedia.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It's even better, Takeda also accounts historically for the contribitions of Bywater and Moles on the issue, and lastly Halliwell.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Page mover rights[edit]

Greetings, Primefac.

In August, you granted me page mover rights on a trial basis for two months [1]. I was unaware the trial ended (and I lost the right) a couple weeks ago and have since requested the page mover bit again. I made the request at WP:RFPPM last week but it has not been acted on yet. I was hoping you could review my new request, because you were the one to grant it most recently.

Thank you,

Calidum 17:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to get to this, real life kept sliding this down my list of priorities. Good to see you got it granted though. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of images[edit]

Hello, I hope that you can provide some guidance or direct me.

I have been working on the page of the Biblioteca Marciana for some time and am currently discussing with the Marciana to be able to use images of the artwork inside the library. If I am successful, the library will provide me with the images for informational purposes on the conditions that they not be used for commercial purposes and that anyone who reutilizes them indicate that the paintings belong to the Marciana. My questions are: 1) is this possible, 2) how would I indicate the source since these would not be photos that I myself took, 3) what copyright would have to be indicated, 4) if the disclaimer for the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, would also be appropriate?

Thank you for whatever assistance you may be able to provide.Venicescapes (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I must admit that I'm probably not the best person to ask this question; text copyright issues are more my area. I would suggest starting with WP:DONATEIMAGE and then possibly proceeding to one of the related noticeboards. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the indication. I'll take a closer look at the various options.Venicescapes (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence?[edit]

This and this creator geolocate to within a few metres of the article subject and that the draft was moved almost exactly after 4 days and on the 11th edit? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt the IP has a familiarity with the restaurant, but based on the other "BQUB" usernames I don't think BQUB19-SMontero is connected directly; see this and that). I think I'll move the draft back to its proper location and let a reviewer handle it rather than a new user who is likely knowledgeable in other fields, but I'll need to check that it actually isn't valid at the moment. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User right[edit]

Could you and Barkeep49 check this out (comment on its talk page) and I'll move it to an appropriate venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 3 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)

Me thinks[edit]

that's a poor suppression. WBGconverse 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Election Committee (which as you remember is composed of three OSers) is discussing the matter, but I felt it crossed the line; suppression is easily undone if we determine I was being overly cautious.~~ Primefac (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; FWIW, I do think that basic removal was okay.
Curiously, in these cases, who has the final say? The three commissioners or the consensus over entire functionaries-en? WBGconverse 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the three of us are OSers we can likely come to a consensus among ourselves, but if necessary we will ask the full OS list for input. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I presume that if someone took issue with our suppression, and was dissatisfied with our explanation thereof, they have the option to take the matter to the OS team or to ARBCOM. If it was something we felt to be contentious we'd do so ourselves. In this case, Godric, I'd suggest that you don't bother with either of those things; the candidate has withdrawn, as you know, and so the need to subject them to further scrutiny is somewhat lower. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, I am unbothered. Idle curiosity, ypu might say :) WBGconverse 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting publicly that all three of us looked at the suppression and agreed it was warranted in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since when was "suppression is easily undone if we determine I was being overly cautious" ever been a valid reason to obliterate content? Per whatever policy it is that covers your actions Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction and per whatever rules of accountability covers your activity in ACE2019, I should like a better explanation please. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, the valid reason to remove the content was because of WP:OSPOL. It was a borderline case but after discussion we determined it was over that border. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean, "No"? No, I'm wrong? You need to read the question before being so dismissive. If I remember the redacted question it concerned the candidate's eligibility for the role and highlighted open WMF content relating to age limitations. How does that breach anything, since the content removed is actually part of the required candidate reading? Hiding behind a group of 3 doesn't really cut it. If it was your action, YOU are accountable. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
You asked if "being overly cautious" was a valid reason, and I said "no", giving the explanation for why I did what I did.
The substance of the question is as you remember it, but there's a difference between asking a simple question (which the candidate may or may not choose to answer) and providing "evidence" that goes against the policies. That's about as far as I am willing to stretch OSPOL regarding discussing suppressed content, and if you have an issue with the suppression (confirmed as acceptable by 3 members of the oversight team) then you are welcome to take this up with ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Specifically what part of section 1 of OSPOL covers the removal of an anonymous estimate of age eligibility? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The "non-public personal information" part that's bolded in the first line. WP:DOX falls under OSPOL #1. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I saw no prospect of the candidate's private info. being compromised. Obviously must have missed something. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Assuming the above is about my question, I don't have a huge problem with it having been removed after having been noted by the candidate (who withdrew), although revision-deletion strikes me as pollyannaish. I tried to nudge the candidate earlier in the day with a broad hint on their talk page that they had overlooked an age requirement, but that seemed to go unnoticed; put into form of a candidate question it might have come across as intrusive, but it was a simple case of drawing a logical conclusion from on-wiki activity to ask a very valid question about a public candidacy. Anyway, as I say, removing the question doesn't offend my sensibilities; revision-deletion strikes me as too much but is more indicative of the overprotective way young people are treated these days than anything else. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
It does concern yours - as well as the collateral damage. My concern is the fact that we have material being expunged when the case for doing so is dubious. Where does it end and where are the checks and balances? 3 coordinators apparently agreed, yet is was marginal. As Victor Meldrew would say, " I don't believe it". It looks like a collective decision by fiat. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
How many OSers would you like to review the suppression? If ArbCom says it's okay, will that be enough? Does Jimbo need to weigh in? Yes I'm being hyperbolic but the entire point of having both the community and ArbCom approve a candidate to be an oversighter is that we're trusted to make these sorts of decisions. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are being hyperbolic. And it looks childish. Don't get away with the idea that because you have gone through a rigorous selection process that your decisions are for ever and a day infallible or that you cannot be challenged. Continued trust is a 2-way process. My recollection is that there was no identifying material and your oversight was inappropriate. Obviously I cannot be certain, that doesn't dis-entitle me from challenging you. At least one other editor in good standing already raised concern and it is conceded that it was marginal. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to challenge the decision I made; I by no means think that I'm infallible. However, I've explained my position and have demonstrated support for it, and yet you're still saying that I'm somehow wrong. I cannot discuss the specifics of the case because that would nullify the entire reason for suppressing the information in question. Neither of us is likely to change their minds; I'm just wondering at what point you'll either begrudgingly accept that what I did was acceptable or find a higher authority to either confirm or overturn my decision. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Neither. But be clear - I agree with the very first sentence in this section. And I cannot think of many occasions when I have agreed with WBG. More broadly, censorship has a chilling effect and pointing out to an otherwise anonymous kid that he is not eligible for age seems a strange thing to cover up. It concerns me that if your bar is so low, what else is being removed from sight. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It's good that it's chilling. That's part of the point, I think. I only wish that the efforts that were already well underway to inform this editor that they should withdraw for any number of reasons had been successful before someone decided to try to publicly push them. It's not like only one or two people worked out the issue; most of us had the sense not to make a publicly visible big deal about it. Seriously; that edit was entirely unnecessary. Risker (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom election templates[edit]

Howdy Primefac, I mentioned it on the election coordination page but I'd be interested in working on improving the templates for ArbCom elections. This is actually the first election I've been around for, and this isn't really a policy area I've paid much attention to, so I have a couple of use case questions before I make any edits:

  • Would there ever be multiple elections in the same year? If so, would they be counted as the same year's elections or would they need a new group?
  • Is there any reason that the candidates page "create a profile" button needs the username manually input? It could probably be changed so that there's just a button which automatically grabs the editing user's username and creates the page that way, no need to type in your username or have the path editable. I guess there's the possibility that someone would want to create a profile while editing under an alternate account, but to be honest I would consider an alternate account signing the main up for arbcom to be a little weird.

I might start playing around with template sandboxes while the election is ongoing, but I'll of course save any edits to the live templates until after the election is over - I'd rather not be remembered as the guy who bricked the ArbCom election process. If you have anything else you'd like to see done with the templates, I'd be interested in hearing about it - this seems like a pretty good project to practice my intermediate-complexity template writing. Thanks! creffett (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting thoughts. First, at the moment there is no process for having two elections in the same year, so the minor changes that Cyberpower has already implemented to do a {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} should work for most of those templates. Second, as long as we keep using a preloading template to populate the candidate pages we will still need to use <inputbox> and thus need to have them manually input their name; if all we cared about was the page being created then it would be trivial to do a {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}. I don't think there's a good way to automate the pages being created, but the main issue/concern was that the dates (and therefore the links) would be incorrect; ideally those should change/update automatically so that we only need to change one or two templates each year. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Creffett: There is now a process for interim elections to happen between the regularly scheduled annual elections, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019#Procedures for emergency elections. If such elections are held they would be considered distinct from the regular elections that year. All the pages would be nested under the month (e.g. we might have Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2020/Candidates/Example and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Example), but beyond that there is no precedent for templates I'm aware of - the last time there were multiple elections in a year was 2006 when things were quite different. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thryduulf, good to know - might be best to future-proof by naming the elections with the month and year instead of just the year. Unlikely, sure, but if we have to hold emergency elections we probably don't want to be messing around with templates trying to get everything working right. creffett (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Currently they are named on month and year, though obviously it's currently hardcoded to "December". Primefac (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. I've done my initial reading on the templates (oh goodness, there's Lua in here...), and here's my rough thoughts:
  • Make some tweaks to Module:Arbcom_election_banner, most of which involve cutting down on duplication in the ACE template args and making it easier to just click a link and have a page ready
    • Be more flexible with handling dates (surprisingly, it can already guess most of the links from the year param, but of course it assumes December). Add a month param, if unset defaults to December, if not December flags this as a special election.
    • Tweak the links to offer up a preloaded version of the page if it doesn't exist already so that election coordinators can create the yearly election template and then click on a bunch of links to preload the child pages.
    • See if the Lua can play nice enough with templates to be able to pull the data from Arbitration Committee candidate/data without having to specify a half-dozen calls to that template. Probably not, but worth looking.
  • It might be neat to automate the Questions subpage, but that will probably need more Lua, and figuring out which candidates have withdrawn will be an engineering exercise. Possible, but might be more work than it's worth.
  • Update some of the existing templates to understand that elections might not happen in December.
Huh, I expected there to be more than that. Oh well, that seems like a reasonable starting point. creffett (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoopsy![edit]

Thanks for the catch at Joseph_Caspi, my bad. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Re: AWB permission; thanks Hmains (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have an inquiry[edit]

Hello Primefac, the operator of PrimeBOT, derived from the legendary Optimus Prime (yep I don't know what I'm saying, maybe I'm right who knows, ah haha) — anyway, hope things are well. I'm thinking of requesting the autopatrolled user right which would benefit me and save the reviewers time. I'm already aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but irrespective of this, I already believe that any content added should be cited to reliable independent secondary sources and written from a neutral point of view, not contain any copyvio and so on — after all, if something is not sourced, people will question its legitimacy, how do we know what is being said is true?

On checking the request page, it says: "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 25 valid articles" but I don't think I've created this many yet, definitely created a few - I'm currently working on a new school article off-Wiki and will publish on here soon. My latest one is The Cedars School (be sure to check this one out which shows how I'll be creating articles). Do you think I'd be eligible for this if I was to request it or should I wait? Please let me know what you think, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I see only a dozen articles created over the past 3-4 years. Autopatrolled is really for editors who really "crank 'em out", with the intention being that it eases the burden on the New Pages Patrol. I'd suggest making a few more articles, and if they're being approved with few or no concerns upon review I'd say it's reasonable to request the perm. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I see, awesome, I do have some articles in the pipeline, it's just getting around to them (have been focusing more on the one above). I prefer to create new articles in either Start or C-class as a minimum threshold — I've noticed some editors have created hundreds of stubs and even though some may be ok in that they can be expanded, a lot of them are hardly expanded and remain as stubs for a long time (some look like they've been abandoned). Anyway, I'd say it was mainly last year when I really started editing and it has led me to look at other tools now even though I decided to remain as extended confirmed only, which is becoming a bit of a nuisance haha.
I was looking at page mover, especially being able to move pages without leaving a redirect, having to keep using db templates which can be annoying — do you think I'd be eligible for this if I was to request it? I seem to meet the criteria, my only concern is where it says "have experience with the requested moves venue" - I've listed articles at requested moves before and have seen the round-robin page moves, I know how page moving works, is this "experience" or does it mean actually having done a requested move without a page mover right? Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
If I’m eligible, maybe you could grant me this or should I request it at RFP? Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:MLB standings[edit]

You template-protected this template a while ago, however the module it uses was reduced to semi-protection after a request on the protecting admin's talk page. Would you mind lowering the protection level of the template to match that of the module? * Pppery * it has begun... 02:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think semiprot is sufficient, but with a certain individual insisting that ECP isn't allowed for templates, I suppose I can drop the template down to match the module. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

add 2020[edit]

hi..please add 2020 to Paralympics in Module:Team appearances list/data ...thanks--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett[edit]

You must feel very pleased with yourself at being able to blank Eric Corbett's page - I am sure you will get huge kudos from certain quarters. However, now having done so, perhaps you could add the following pages to your watchlist, and now take care of them yourself. Happy editing Giano (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured articles, good articles, and DYKs which Eric has contributed significantly to:
Featured article Belle Vue Zoological Gardens
Featured article Blue men of the Minch
Featured article Chat Moss
Featured article Cotswold Olimpick Games
Featured article Cottingley Fairies
Featured article Denbies
Featured article Donner Party
Featured article Enid Blyton
Featured article Florence Nagle
Featured article Gilbert Foliot
Featured article Geoffrey (archbishop of York)
Featured article Greater Manchester
Featured article Green children of Woolpit
Featured article Gropecunt Lane
Featured article Gunpowder Plot
Featured article Guy Fawkes
Featured article Halifax Gibbet
Featured article Jersey Act
Featured article Kelpie
Featured article Malkin Tower
Featured article Manchester
Featured article Manchester Mark 1
Featured article Manchester Mummy
Featured article Manchester Ship Canal
Featured article Melford Stevenson
Featured article Middle Ages
Featured article Moors murders
Featured article Nuckelavee
Featured article Pendle witches
Featured article Peterloo Massacre
Featured article Pitfour estate
Featured article Poppy Meadow
Featured article Roy of the Rovers
Featured article Samuel Johnson
Featured article Sunbeam Tiger
Featured article SSEM
Featured article Sale, Greater Manchester
Featured article Samlesbury witches
Featured article Stretford
Featured article The Coral Island
Featured article The Green Child
Featured article The Man in the Moone
Featured article Theobald of Bec
Featured article Trafford Park
Featured article Towns in Trafford
Featured article Wife selling
Featured article Wilfrid
Featured article William Calcraft
Featured article William de Corbeil
Featured article William Cragh
Featured article William Warelwast
1950s American automobile culture
1996 Manchester bombing
Alan Turing
Allison Balfour
Barton Aqueduct
Beeston Castle
Boobrie
Borley Rectory
Bradford Colliery
Bramshill House
Chester Cathedral
Concealed shoes
Didsbury
Elizabeth Ann Linley
Elspeth Reoch
Ferret legging
Inchdrewer Castle
Jaguar XJ220
John Gregorson Campbell
Manchester computers
Manchester Liners
Manchester Martyrs
Margaret Thatcher
MediaCityUK
Ordsall Hall
Paisley witches
Robert Tatton
Salford
Sea Mither
Simon Byrne
Stoor worm
The Princess and the Pea
Tickle Cock Bridge
Water bull
Witchcraft in Orkney
Workhouse
Did you know Boobrie
Did you know Charles White (physician)
Did you know Donner Party
Did you know Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard
Did you know Ferret legging
Did you know Florence Nagle
Did you know James Billington
Did you know Manchester computers
Did you know Malkin Tower
Did you know Michael Polakovs
Did you know Norah Wilmot
Did you know Nuckelavee
Did you know Peterloo Massacre
Did you know Port of Manchester
Did you know Prince's Theatre, Manchester
Did you know Sea Mither
Did you know Stoor worm
Did you know Tickle Cock Bridge
Did you know Water bull
Did you know Wife selling

Articles created

*Aero 3S

Malkin Tower

Manchester computers

Featured article Manchester Mummy

Robert Tatton

Featured article Samlesbury witches

Featured article The Green Child

Tickle Cock Bridge

If I took pleasure in performing difficult administrative duties I'd likely have been run off the project by now. Someone was going to it, and that someone (this time) happens to be me. Have a nice day. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes there is value in not being the one to do things, Primefac. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
True, but I suspect this message would have landed on the talk page of whichever editor made the change. If anything, not knowing Eric or really having anything to do with him has probably resulted in a milder "rebuke" than if it had been someone more intimately involved. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, I agree. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The tags should remain in place until/if EC's is reinstated. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: I wouldn't object, if EC's page is restored (with the tags included), as my Canadian flag & caption was allowed to remain, while I was tagged from 2013 to 2014. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • The tags should stay - and so should his record of achievement. Both are information which future editors may find useful in exploring the context in which they are editing. PamD 15:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What PamD said (and I said in other words on Eric's talk). How can we tell those who put it on your desk, if you can't decide? Until today, I didn't even know functionaries exist. Do they have a talk page? Or - easier - can you decide that readers need the contribs information? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt: The Wikipedia:Functionaries group could be written to at Wikipedia talk:Functionaries. –xenotalk 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)