User talk:Rathfelder

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

Medical dictionary definition articles[edit]

Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with {{move to wiktionary}} instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that. Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust[edit]

Hi - I notice that you have moved Darent Valley Hospital to Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust. What is your thinking behind this? Surely the hospital will last a lot longer than the trust? I suppose in an ideal world we would have separate articles - one on the trust and one on the hospitals. Thoughts welcome. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a problem area, and you are, of course right that the physical hospital may well last longer than the Trust. But information about performance, quality etc. is only available at Trust level. With Trusts that run more than one hospital it makes sense to have 2 separate articles, and if this Trust is dissolved we may then have to make a new article for the hospital. But most of the information in the present article is actually about the Trust, and there is already an article about the old Darenth Park Hospital. If you think there is sufficient material for an article about the new hospital perhaps we should start that. Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
OK. Many thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not use Wikipedia to promote businesses, such as you did in the article Healthcare in Switzerland. Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. If you want to list a company for potential customers to find, please consider alternative outlets. Thank you. Also not valid for Health in Europe. ZH8000 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@ZH8000: No company was mentioned, let alone promoted. The diff referred to the health care system of an entire country. Please read more carefully before criticising and reverting other editors' work. PamD 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, reading more carefully (oops) I see it's the source you're claiming is being promoted, rather than the content. I don't see that being a private company makes a source invalid - most publications other than government publications are published by private organisations. Why do you think that the Euro health consumer index, which has a Wikipedia article, is not a WP:RS? PamD 09:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not claim RS, did you recognize!? -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If we cannot use private publications - such as newspapers - where are we supposed to find information? You could argue that the article about Health Consumer Powerhouse is a bit soapy, but the information they produce appears to be widely accepted.Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Whether you promote a company's name or their product does not really make a difference. It is still promoting. And one of the Swedish company Health Consumer Powerhouse 's product is their Euro health consumer index, in other words: a ranking list. And since there is nobody to testify their independence, we can't know how serious their supposedly "independent" survey is, since they are not obliged to provide any evidence. BUT Health Consumer Powerhouse pretend to do so, even with their company name. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't accept that quoting their publication is promoting the company, any more than quoting the Daily Mail is promoting that.Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You may not want to accept it, but it is no WP:RS and not even its relevancy has been confirmed by a third-party source. Note also that there is a difference between a quality newspaper (like Times, FT, Independent, or Telegraph) that is at least reliably edited vs. the press releases of a company serving its immediate shareholder value. Daily Mail is not considered a quality newspaper, but may qualify as a WP:RS in some cases.
ZH8000 was right to remove that paragraph per WP:NOTRS and WP:UNDUE. If you can prove the company's press release has been widely reproduced by WP:RS, you may reinsert the paragraph. (talk page watcher) PanchoS (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
How many do you want?

Do you have evidence that the Health Consumer Powerhouse has shareholders? How does it make money? There is an article about it, but it only reproduces the chart. It doesn't say anything about the organisation. It appears to give away its main product.

I think you are quite wrong to suggest that the Daily Mail is not regarded as a reliable source. You or I may not approve of its point of view but there is no suggestion that it is not a reliable source of facts. It's a mainstream newspaper.

Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Health care in Switzerland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZH8000 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was following PanchoS advice. I produced reputable references. I don't see what the problem is.Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't. You just reverted ZH8000 introducing the same press release which is indeed a bit WP:SOAPy and not inherently reputable unless cited by reliable mainstream media or medical publications. --PanchoS (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't found anything in Swiss media -probably because of language issues, but I provided five examples of mainstream media in other countries taking up the story, and a lengthy response from the Irish minister of health. I think that establishes the credentials of the report. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
An edit war is carefully defined. This isn't one. I am waiting for you to engage in the discussion of the points I've made. And preferably without any more threats.Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Northern Ireland Federation of Sub-Aqua Clubs and British Underwater Sports Association[edit]

Hi Rathfelder, I noticed that you removed the Category:Supraorganizations from both the above articles. Can you please advise why you have done particularly both organisations meet the description of a supraorganisation as per the category page, i.e. membership is made of organisations rather than individuals? Please reply here. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I dispute the definition, and I have altered the article. I can't see any sign of anyone outside wikipedia using it in this sense. I don't think that is how the word is used in the real world. In the real world the term Supraorganization seems to imply some sort of overarching function, such as regulation. There are immense numbers of organisations whose members are other organisations. All the football leagues in the world for a start, and many religious and academic organisations. I am trying to make some sense of the category. Specifically I don't see that being composed of other organisations is a defining characteristic of organisations of the kind you mention, or indeed of most sporting organisations. So I can't see that anyone looking for a sub-aqua organisation would be looking for it under this category. Do you think anyone would refer to either as a supraorganisation? But I think Sports governing bodies probably do fit here. I know nothing about underwater sports, and you are entirely free to disagree with me and revert. But perhaps you could tell me if there is any organisation in that area which fits my view of the definition? Is there a rule making or standard setting organisation body?Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your insights in the word "Supraorganisation". A search online suggests that this could be an unintended WP by-product. A focused google search found the use of the word in texts concerned with international governance (i.e. treaties) and agencies within government. Generally, the word was spelt as supra-organization or supra organization. Also, none of the texts that I viewed were specifically concerned with supraorganizations. There may be some managerial texts that briefly discuss the concept. In response to your questions, I advise the following. Firstly, I think the term would only be used within academia; in other fields, terms such as peak bodies and umbrella organisations would probably prevail. Also, I think the prefix “supra” is not widely. Secondly, sports governing bodies do have a regulatory function in respect to sports rules. In respect to underwater sports, I think the best example of a supraorganisation would the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. Thirdly, a example of a standard setting organisation body would be the International Organization for Standardization. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is most helpful. I will continue my efforts to reduce inappropriate use of the category.Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User page editting[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rathfelder (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

If removing red categories from user pages is not allowed I am happy not to do so. However the guidelines appear to say that users should not put red categories on their pages, and they don't say that removing them is out of order. I will not remove any but I would like like the guideline to be clarified.Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I will go a little further than the gentle messages here. You should not alter any aspect of a user page without discussing it first on the user talk page. If you apply again for unblock, please add an agreement to this as part of your request. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I have never altered any other aspect of any user page as far as I know, and i have no intention of starting to do so.Rathfelder (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. You've got several notes about this above, all from contributors with a vast amount of experience. However, in the hope that this finally puts the matter straight in your head, see WP:PG. That says, inter alia, Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Note that even the bit about policies is slightly hazy - normally follow - and that common sense should be applied etc. And while arbitrators are really no different to anyone else here, you might care to peruse User:Drmies. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
So I am blocked for following best practice?Rathfelder (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You are being selective: ... in specific contexts. And umpteen people have told you that in this context it is not considered to be appropriate to apply the guideline. If you're going to quote stuff, at least do not misrepresent it. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I find this very confusing. I would like to say in my defence that I have removed hundreds of red links from user pages. A small number - not umpteen, more like 6 - have reverted or complained, and I have not started any edit wars - if they want to keep their red links I don't want to fight about it. The vast majority have not taken any action. But if you say I mustn't remove any red categories from user pages then I won't. Rathfelder (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please may I be unblocked?Rathfelder (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

People cannot watch their own user pages. A lot of changes are simply missed because of that. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Most of the user pages I have edited in this way appeared to me to be abandoned.Rathfelder (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

unblock I undertake not to make any changes to anyone's user page from now on Rathfelder (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • On the surface, your latest unblock request is good. The problem I have is that in your first unblock request you implied that you didn't know that removing redlinked cats from userpages was "not allowed". As I said in my pesonalized block notice, you've been warned before. How can you say you didn't know?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody explained to me why it is not allowed. The vast majority of those whose pages I edited did not complain. Is there some guidance which I have not seen which says so? I have been told that this guideline is widely ignored - so why is it not changed to reflect the real policy?Rathfelder (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • First, when an administrator in his capacity as an administrator informs you that your edits are disruptive and you risk being blocked, you should take it seriously. Second, no one has explained it to you to your satisfaction. At least in this area your conduct is that of a crusader, something that is rarely a good practice at Wikipedia, not to mention an expenditure of time that could be put to much more constructive uses. Don't mix up guidelines and policy. The guideline doesn't have to be changed, but if you think it does, then your complaint is on the guideline Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody who complained said they were an administrator. This is not a crusade on my part. I don't care what people do on their user pages. My crusade is to tidy up the category list, which is where I come across these red categories. I don't know what page I will be taken to by a red category. I thought these red categories were an unhelpful addition to the category list - and I still do. But if they are to be tolerated I will tolerate them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy page on user pages says "Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies." and "Do not put your userpage or subpages, including draft articles, into content categories". It goes on to say "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier. Bots and other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. " So it is acceptable to inform someone that they are making inappropriate use of categories?Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I suppose it is appropriate to tell them that you think they are making inappropriate use of categories. If they proceed to cuss you out and call you a Puritan, I suppose that's their good right, as long as they stay within the bounds of NPA of course.

    In the case of User:John Carter's page (and John Carter wishes he were a Wikipedian sex worker), you've known this since July, when LadyofShalott and Bbb23 reverted you. You have been reverted three times on that one page alone, for the same edit, which is something we usually call "slow edit warring", and which is blockable. If you insist on formalities I can leave you a templated warning. Or you can just drop this very silly stick and move on. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Are you quoting from WP:TPG now? If so, (added at 16:12) you still don't seem to get it: that is a guideline, not a policy. Give up: you are not going to get your way and the more you dig yourself into this hole the worse it gets. See WP:IDHT and don't even attempt to "inform" someone that they're making inappropriate use etc until you've gained a much better understanding of the basics. Which, by the way, includes learning how to indent your posts. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I am quite happy to leave user pages severely alone. I am not planning to tell people anything. I am not trying to get my way. I am trying to understand. As far as John Carter's page is concerned, I was not aware that I have edited it more than once. It's not deliberate. I am working on the alphabetical list of categories. If he has several red categories I will have come across them in their alphabetical sequence, not realising that I have been on that page before. When my edits were reverted I left them reverted. But I was not told why what I did was wrong. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I was quoting from WP:USER and WP:UCAT- guidelines. But the policy appears to be that "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I don't understand why I am in trouble for attempting to follow it.Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As Drmies says, both LadyOfShalott (another administrator in case you didn't bother checking) and I reverted you, but later, when you continued to do the same thing, I left this warning, which you promptly removed. It kind of puts your credibilty at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't know - and didn't investigate - that any of those involved were administrators. If I had I would have taken the warning more seriously. I thought I was doing what I was supposed to be doing. I am sorry that I was wrong.Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been working on letters of the alphabet at random - I've done P and now I am on B. It's unfortunate that John Carter has a category beginning with each letter.Rathfelder (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody told me that the policy was that I shouldn't edit other people's user pages. That doesn't appear to be stated anywhere explicitly.Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I read your warning properly. On 5th August I was in a tent. I read the message "Don't edit it again. " from pablo. I had no intention of editing Pablo's page again, and I didn't know what -Bbb23 was referring to when he mentioned edit warring. I wasn't aware that I had edited the same user page more than once.Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. My message also had a section title, ie. "My user page; don't edit it again. This after you had had three stabs at it. You also had messages on the same subject from Gerda Arendt, Roxy the dog , Bbb23, Lady of Shallott and (for all I know) others. You seem to have ignored all of them. How long were you in the tent? pablo 08:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid when I am removing red categories I hardly read the article. I can only apologise. I wasn't aware that I had edited before. I was, as you might say, only in the tent a few seconds.Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't paying attention won't be an acceptable excuse again. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It clearly wasn't accepted this time.
Can I have a little guidance please? Is it acceptable to remove red categories from drafts and user namespace articles?Rathfelder (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Question re User page editting[edit]

re:You should not alter any aspect of a user page without discussing it first on the user talk page. If you apply again for unblock... --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here with a small question: Can anyone including wp:ADMINs interfere with any aspect of a user talk page? I am asking because this has happened to me sometime ago. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

If you mean is it possible? Yes. Its a Wikipedia page which anyone can edit. If you mean is it wise to do so - generally no.Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


{{|unblock | reason=I now think I understand what happened. I have been working, for some months, on the [ alphabetical list of categories], removing red categories, and, where I can, adding correct categories to articles, and creating categories which are clearly missing. Among the red categories I find some on user pages. I read [[WP:USER]] and [[WP:UCAT]]- guidelines and reached the conclusion that red categories should be removed from them. I have done that on several hundred user pages. In about six cases I had complaints, and I now realise that some of those complaints and warnings were from administrators, but at the time, as I thought I was correctly following guidelines, (and as complaints were so few) I did not take the complaints seriously. In the course of this exercise I came across the user page of [[User:John Carter]] several times, over the space of a couple of months, because he has several red categories, beginning with different letters of the alphabet. This was one of the pages in respect of which I had been warned, but I did not realise that when I visited it for the second and third time. I therefore went ahead removing the red categories again, not realising I had done that before and been warned. Clearly that looks like "slow edit warring", in retrospect. I can only say that I did not intend to do such a thing. I am not, and was not, on any kind of crusade in respect of user pages. I am trying to tidy up the categories. I hope that is a useful task. I am perfectly happy to give an undertaking not to edit the categories (or anything else) on any user pages in future. I have never intentionally got involved in an edit war and I am very sorry that I did so inadvertently.[[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder#top|talk]]) 23:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)}}

Esperança (non-profit)[edit]

Quick question, in June you changed the category Esperança (non-profit) was listed under from Category:Non-profit organizations based in Arizona to Category:Charities based in Arizona. I was wondering why you made the change? Non-profit is a legal status under which organizations operate. Charity is a synonym of the word but does not carry the same weight. I almost think the Charities category should be eliminated and everything merged to Non-Profits based in Arizona. This is of course assuming that all those listed in the former do have that tax status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Charity is the word used in the rest of the world for organisations of this kind. Outside the USA the term Non-profit is not used much, so the international categorisation heirarchy for health charities, for example, would not include all non-profits . Not all American non-profits would be regarded as charities. Charity is a sub category of non profit. So Esperanca is still within the category of non-profit. Rathfelder (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello Rathfelder, you seems to be a destubator. Thank you for... just removing the stub tag in the articles and not assessing the respective talk. Wikiproject volleyball still have a quality scale and there is a policy for stubs that states that stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. Also it says for removing the stub template, that Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template and this article for example have not been expanded since the tag were put in place and by the way, it is just two sentences. You are not either completing the destub correctly because you have not done this in any article recently: When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary and you have to.--Osplace 01:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The policy actually says " stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." I don't think it is appropriate in articles about sports teams to ignore the tabular information about their performance or the members of the squad. The same information could have been presented as prose. There is, in each of the volleyball articles, a lot of information. Far more than could be included in a dictionary article.

I don't see much correlation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. Many pages marked as stub are marked as start class on the talk page, if they are assessed at all, and many of the stub assessments are clearly outdated. I am working through the 1000 largest stubs. Most of them are clearly no longer stubs. These are all articles with more than 10,000 characters. There are screensful of useful information. I don't edit the assessments on the talk pages because I think they are performing a different function from the stub template on the article. Some articles are marked by several projects and are differently assessed by them. For example: Talk:Swansea District (UK Parliament constituency) is assessed differently by three different projects. Talk:Shamim Ara is Rated Start-class by 3 different projects, but had a stub template on the article itself. I don't feel competent to assess in terms of the projects.

If you disagree with my assessment that is fine, I'm not going to argue with you. It's a subjective decision. But the policy is quite clear:"Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable." And I find it difficult to see what is achieved be leaving these substantial articles in the stub list.Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not read my comment. It does not matter if you do not see any relation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. The policy clearly says that When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary.

An article should have prose. The prose section is the main reason to promote them in the quality scale. Forget about the size. Is not whatever you want, if every single editor should do whatever it wants taking no consideration to policies what would happen? Stick to the policy. If is a large size it should be a huge stub, nothing else. When removing the tag, update the talk page, you have to. No matter if there is something different, both should read the same, if not you should help correct it, but by the policy, not your own idea. According to your talk page, you have been warned for this before, take that into consideration.--Osplace 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I have read your comments. But I don't agree with you. I am not part of your project. A project can have its own criteria for the classification of articles which I am not party to. One article may be part of several projects, (Russia women's national under-18 volleyball team is part of 4) and they may all have different criteria. In the case of the articles you reverted most had not been rated at all by the projects they were part of, so there was nothing for me to update. Florida Launch, which I just destubbed was rated start class by the Lacrosse project, but left as a stub. The policies you complain I am not following are not consistent, nor practical, and there is a lot of evidence that they are not often followed. In fact, the reality is that only a small minority of projects are operating at all. If your project is working I will not interfere with it.

NB not every article has prose. Lists don't have prose, and the policy says that lists are not stubs. But I think an article should be judged as a whole. How much information does it contain? That is why the policy says "usually". Of course I could deconstruct the tables and turn them into prose, and I suppose you would then concede that the articles are not stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic Wikipedians[edit]

Hi, you may have seen my recent nomination, since I added your name to the nomination. I'm just curious, really – what is with Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians and the subcategories of it? Thoroughly bemused. (Not necessarily amused – just bemused.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I am on a mission to reduce the number of red categories. I've learned that it is not acceptable to interfere with categories people put on their user pages, so I thought I would try this. I didn't really create any of the sub categories, just categorised them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah! I see. These are ones that they added themselves and had left redlinked. Is this necessary though? Or, I mean, what's the point? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For those that start "Wikipedians ..." not very much. Though I suppose the idea of categorising your user page is to help other people find people like you. But the others (like People who ...) appear when I am working through the alphabetical list of categories, and I have got myself in trouble by removing red categories from user pages. So I thought I would see if this was an acceptable way of dealing with the problem. Rathfelder (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. In the context of your recent experience with removing redlinked categories from user pages, it kind of has the appearance of kind of a WP:POINT situation, but at the same time I don't think that your intent is to disrupt. For these categories, which mostly appear to be jokes, why not just let users keep redlinked categories on their pages? They are not serious, and I don't think they seriously wanted them to be created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed make a point, but I hope in a harmless way. I thought people who were really bothered about their link being red would remove the category. But actually it appears many of these people do have a common approach to Wikipedia, or to life .. And by no means all of them make a point about red links. Am I being foolish?Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This was a very bad idea. I'm tempted to speedy delete the lot of them. At minimum, I'll be nominating most if not every one for deletion. Virtually all of them violate WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • What VegaDark said was my concern about these. Harmless in a sense, but in another sense it just creates more work, since by guideline almost every one is liable for deletion. And if they are deleted, I see no reason why users can't keep the redlinks on their userpage for the category if they want to keep the joke going. Userpages are given a fair bit of latitude in this regard, as far as I am aware. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I concur with the above two comments (by VegaDark and GoF). I think all of these joke user categories should be speedy deleted. I particularly agree with VegaDark's comment at : "this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category." Rathfelder, please just stop the category-play and try to work on things that will actually improve the encyclopedia for the readers. Jeh (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The category play is not mine.Rathfelder (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Deutschland kaput - polish resistance poster.jpg‎[edit]

It would probably be best if you didn't add non-free media to article categories at all, but, if you're committed to doing so, could you please make sure that the images do not show up in the category, as is required by the non-free content criteria. Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. Mostly I am removing red categories. If replacing them with real categories is unhelpful I won't do that.Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing categories from user pages (again!)[edit]

A look at your edit history shows that you have returned to the behavior that got you blocked. i.e. you are removing categories from user pages.

You were toldpreviously by @Anthony Bradbury:, "You should not alter any aspect of a user page without discussing it first on the user talk page." There was no exception given for redlinked categories on user pages.

You even appeared to accept this: "I undertake not to make any changes to anyone's user page from now on"

And you also wrote "I am quite happy to leave user pages severely alone."

How is this consistent with your recent edit history? Jeh (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Roxy the dog. bark 12:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not touched your user page. Nor, as far as I am aware, any other active user pages.Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • And I have resisted the temptation to put you into the Idiosyncratic Wikipedians category.Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, your behaviour has become disruptive to the project. At the moment I have no desire to pursue the logical follow up to this, but I would support such a move. Roxy the dog. bark 12:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Can we please wait for a resolution of the issues I have raised on the CFD pages?Rathfelder (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Although I by no means speak for the wider community, I would suggest we reach a consensus limiting your removal of these links for users who have not made an edit in 6-12 months to minimize the possibility of disruption, although I personally agree with you that redlinks on user pages are not ideal and it would be great to have some official modifications of WP:USERCAT to address this (perhaps I'll start a request for comment on Wikipedia Talk:User categories). I still think my idea of the official policy on this being that a bot checks categories that have been deleted via CfD or G4 as re-creation of a CfD'd category periodically removing these categories every 4 months or so is the best you're going to get (without repercussions for those who re-add the category). I doubt there would be consensus to prohibit users from adding such redlinks on their page (presumably meaning their userpage would be protected from their edits if they continually re-added the category) although I could be wrong. VegaDark (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quite happy to wait for the resolution of the debate - and I have, as far as I know not edited any user page that appeared to be in active use. And I have no intention of going around interfering with user pages. I wandered into this minefield quite by accident. My problem would be fixed if the various joke user categories were made into proper blue categories, and I am sure I could cope with the small number of people who really want to have red links. Some people write articles on their user pages and put categories on them which are nothing to do with them as a user - I think they should be dealt with separately. I think a discussion on Wikipedia Talk:User categories) is a good idea. Rathfelder (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"My problem would be fixed if the various joke user categories were made into proper blue categories" - The problem with that is that users create all kinds of unencyclopedic, dumb, joke, or other categories that have no place on Wikipedia per WP:USERCAT. You solution of turning them in to blue links is akin to a mainspace page having a redlink to something that consensus has determined should not have an article, and because you can't remove the redlink, you instead create the article. The encyclopedia is harmed far more by creating the page than it is by keeping the redlink. I sympathize that the redlinked categories are disruptive for reports such as Special:WantedCategories (which is why I would support some official guideline on the issue), but again it's far less disruptive than actually creating the categories themselves. VegaDark (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you should simply stop editing other users' pages, with the sole exception of either starting or contributing to discussions on their talk page. No exceptions for "did not appear to be in active use". No exceptions for redlinked categories. No exceptions for articles in user space that are in categories to which they do not apply. No waiting for "resolution" of any "issues". Just stop.
You write "My problem would be fixed" - exactly, it's your problem, in your own mind. I suggest you "fix" it by filing it under "things I don't like but have no power to fix and must accept", and move on. Jeh (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Jeh (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Excellent advice. Roxy the dog. bark 23:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not editing user pages. I am editing categories.Rathfelder (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
What is this, then? Jeh (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That appears to be cleanup work related to Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories. I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that - It's definitely productive to be removing mainspace categories from userspace pages as appears in the edit you provided. I do lots of that work myself, and it's not controversial - so long as the categories are unambiguously intended for mainspace. If there's been removals of user categories in such a manner then that's another issue. VegaDark (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope we can agree that sandboxes, drafts, and user pages used as sandboxes (as new users often do) are not what we are debating.Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories[edit]

Hi Rathfelder. Thanks for creating all those sockpuppet categories over in Special:WantedCategories (I've been trying for months to get rid of all of those). However, I noticed that you put Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets on all of them. I've that putting {{sockpuppet category}} is better, since it adds useful information to the category, in addition to putting it in the right category. The same rule applies for categories begining with Wikipedia Sockpuppets of... Again, I appreciate all you do. Happy editing! spiderjerky (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between sockpuppet categories and suspected sockpuppets? Can it be proved that something is a sockpuppet? and why are we not allowed to make a category for Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hamish Ross‏‎ (39 members)? Rathfelder (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: Sockpuppet categories have been confirmed via IP checking or something, while suspected sockpuppet categories have not. There's really not any difference when it comes to categories. As for Hamish (and Paul Easter), I have no idea why but they're administrator protected, so I'm sure there's a good reason for it. I suppose if it really bugs you you could put in an edit request or something. spiderjerky (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have been learning a bit more about sockpuppetry thanks to you.Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: Happy to do it! Let me know if you have any other questions. spiderjerky (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing stub templates[edit]

Hi, I came across your edits today with removing stub templates, thanks for trying to help out with stub management of pages, however, when you do remove a stub template, can you please also change the rating on the talk page too? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any relationship between assessment of stubs from projects and the general criteria for stubs. Every project can set its own definition, and different projects can and do assess the same article differently. See discussion above on my page under the heading Stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking, anyway, if you remove an AFL related stub, then can you please update the AFL rating on the talk page because they're directly related. I read the discussion above and I'm just reitirating what Osplace asked "when removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary." Flickerd (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But they aren't related at all. Projects set their own definition of a stub which may be quite different from the definition used in the encyclopedia, which is exactly what has happened in the case of the Collingwood Football Club articles. They are clearly not stubs within the criteria of the encyclopedia. If WikiProject Australian rules football wants to have their own criteria that is a matter for them. I am afraid I am not going to investigate the criteria used by each project. Especially as the explanation you appear to be using is not what is described on the project page. The status given by the project to an article on its talk page and the status of the article in the encyclopedia are two different things.Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't really be bothered with this, but continue to make your own rules which is evident in other conversations you've had on your talk page. Flickerd (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered why did you start a conversation? Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Dewrance & Co. Ltd[edit]

Hello, Rathfelder,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Dewrance & Co. Ltd should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewrance & Co. Ltd .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.


Eddie Blick (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)