User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost
25 April 2024
 

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

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

Ichthus January 2020[edit]

ICHTHUS

 WikiProject Christianity
January 2020
The Top 3 Articles

By Stalinsunnykvj

The Top 3 most-popular articles about People in WikiProject Christianity were:

    1. Pope Benedict XVI – retired prelate of the Catholic Church who served as head of the Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 2005 until his resignation.
    2. Pope Francis – the head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State. Francis is the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas, the first from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first pope from outside Europe since the Syrian Gregory III, who reigned in the 8th century.
    3. Dolly Parton – an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in country music. Quotations related to Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: "I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
Did You Know?
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Featured article
Nominated by Stalinsunnykvj
Сретение Господне ("The Meeting of the Lord"), a depiction of Simeon recognising Jesus at the Temple, from a fifteenth-century Novgorodskye School Russian icon.
Сретение Господне ("The Meeting of the Lord"), a depiction of Simeon recognising Jesus at the Temple, from a fifteenth-century Novgorodskye School Russian icon.

A Song for Simeon, is a 37-line poem written in 1928 by American-English poet T. S. Eliot (1888–1965). It is one of five poems that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by Faber and Gwyer. "A Song for Simeon" was the sixteenth in the series and included an illustration by avant garde artist Edward McKnight Kauffer. The poem's narrative echoes the text of the Nunc dimittis, a liturgical prayer for Compline from the Gospel passage. Eliot introduces literary allusions to earlier writers Lancelot Andrewes, Dante Alighieri and St. John of the Cross. Critics have debated whether Eliot's depiction of Simeon is a negative portrayal of a Jewish figure and evidence of anti-Semitism on Eliot's part. (more...)

Bible Verse

Psalm 20:4 New King James Version (NKJV)

Help wanted

We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.

Quotes
"Faith lived in the incognito is one which is located outside the criticism coming from society, from politics, from history, for the very reason that it has itself the vocation to be a source of criticism. It is faith (lived in the incognito) which triggers the issues for the others, which causes everything seemingly established to be placed in doubt, which drives a wedge into the world of false assurances."
~ Jacques Ellul
French philosopher, sociologist, and professor who was a noted Christian anarchist.
Quotations related to Jacques Ellul at Wikiquote

Happy New Year!

At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling.
May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.

Best Wishes!

WikiProject Christianity
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity © Copyleft 2020
Questions • Discussions • Newsroom • Unsubscribe
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support your proposed ideas[edit]

@Fayenatic london:, I totally agree with the proposals that you presented at Nov 6th proposal on categories by parameter discussion!!! how do we get this proposal moved ahead? I'd like to help. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, the user who created those other categories has been blocked. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, noted. The discussion could be listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if it is not closed fairly soon by user:MER-C or another uninvolved editor. October has only just been finished at WP:CFDAC and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions; this is the second oldest on those lists, so it will probably be closed soon. – Fayenatic London 10:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi Fayenatic london, ok, that is good to know. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

@Fayenatic london: The article Burton Adventist Academy has been severly attacked, there was more then one vandal attacking it. Can you please protect this article.Catfurball (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking inactive user drafts[edit]

@Fastily: you reverted my blanking of User:NeilBallantyne/sandbox. I'm raising this on my own talk page because I do this often, and other editors may be interested in the reasons. I usually do it while checking backlinks to a deleted category, so that WP:CFD processes do not result in leaving red links.

In that instance, I was checking red links to a deleted portal. That user sandbox was an old draft of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Services Information Technology Applications which is now a live article at HusITa.

WP:STALEDRAFT lists {{Inactive userpage blanked}} among acceptable options for such pages, and suggests deletion only as a last resort if the page is "problematic even if blanked".

In this case the page was not problematic AFAICS. I am therefore at a loss to know why you reverted the page to be a duplicate article and said "send it to MfD if you think it should be deleted". – Fayenatic London 10:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic London. So if it's evil, then why not delete it? I see zero reason for blanking userspace sandboxes of established editors which aren't doing any harm. It'll be nuisance for when/if they return and it encourages unhelpful busywork amongst active editors. -FASTILY 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)– Fayenatic London 10:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"why not delete it"? – because (i) this is not the standard approach set out at WP:STALEDRAFT, and (ii) it would take up other editors' time to have an MFD.
"zero reason for blanking" - incorrect, there is a positive reason, namely to save checking backlinks after deletions. That is to say, after the page is blanked then it no longer links to categories/ templates /anything else that might be deleted, so when those get deleted/renamed there will be one less incoming redlink from a userpage to be checked.
"it encourages unhelpful busywork amongst active editors" – e.g. who, when? If the editor is long gone, I just blank the page following the policy; if the last edit was more recent, I sometimes first update the red link, and then leave an explanatory edit summary such as [1]. What has given rise to your reverting me – has someone complained?
Your reversion also goes against WP:FAKEARTICLE which says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". – Fayenatic London 14:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your own opinion of course, and needless to say, I disagree. Continuing to discuss this here is effectively moot, given the emerging consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it acceptable to blank userspace sandboxes of long-term/established, but inactive editors?. Kind Regards, FASTILY 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: the "emerging consensus" is that pages should not be blanked if there is no reason. The question then is what amounts to sufficient reason. WP:FAKEARTICLE is clearly sufficient reason, so I have undone your revert on the above sandbox, which I trust you will accept was mistaken. Perhaps you are only disagreeing about whether the workload involved in checking red links is also sufficient reason. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo and Serial Number 54129: Cleanup after CFD is what I often do, but userspace edits are only an occasional and minute fraction of this work. Just realised that we can filter contribs by namespace, so: what is it within my userspace edits that means I'm wasting your time?[2]
@SmokeyJoe: "Hyperactive", blanking "indiscriminately" – were you referring to me? A. No, I was not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: within my unfiltered contribs history, it can be traced that I reached all of these pages by "what links here" for deleted categories. The blanked ones mostly required action under WP:FAKEARTICLE.
Here is something different, a set of edits where I found an old abandoned expansion of an article on a user talk page, so I split the page history to a user sandbox and then advertised the sandbox on the live article's talk page as possibly useful for expanding the article. I'm posting this to illustrate that I don't waste other editors' work that could yet be of value.
Note also that where my blanking was not required by WP:FAKEARTICLE, most of the users were neither long-term nor established.
I acknowledge that in some cases I could have left fuller justification in the edit summary.
If I have offended someone to the point where they have complained off-wiki, I'm not asking you guys to break confidences, but to let me know what exactly in my conduct is unwelcome. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it's worth doing, definitely not worth reverting, and certainly not worth arguing over. GMGtalk 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Fastily just threatened me with ANI the next time I blank a user page (without referring to whether there was a reason or not), but then withdrew it.[3] – Fayenatic London 08:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For my reference: link to previous discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_159#My_Sandbox_changed_by_other_editors. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish television series has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Jewish television series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instance of category re-creation/redirect[edit]

Hi Fayenatic London. Would you please take a look at these edits made today? They seem to be a repost or new redirect of a category that was merged (without redirect) following consensus at this CfD. My feeling is that the changes should be undone but I'm not expert on the policy. Your merger edit was here. Thank you -- Ham105 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my essay WP:Category redirects that should be kept has no official status, and there is no firm policy on when to keep a redirect. I think it's OK to leave this redirect; it makes it easier for non-admin users to trace the change. It should be a soft rather than hard redirect, so I have changed it to use that. For info, I have also redirected the linked page on Arabic Wikipedia, which was already an empty category. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying, editing and providing info on it. -- Ham105 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vituzzu's talk page at meta[edit]

It's unfortunate when uninvolved people are caught in rangeblocks; how much more frustrating it must be when the person who's blocked them, who should be explaining, unblocking, or modifying the block is silent. Thank you for taking the time to reply to the many unanswered messages on Vituzzu's talk page at meta. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation, BlackcurrantTea! I noticed that today Vituzzu belatedly realised that an explanatory notice which used to be at the top of his page went missing a long time ago, and he has reinstated it. – Fayenatic London 18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until I looked at the history I thought you'd added it. Good luck with the Puffin block exemption. Your message template changes will make things easier for others. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For my reference: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_179#IP_range_blocks. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cap'n! – Fayenatic London 00:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Wishing Fayenatic london a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note re section[edit]

hi. I hope you're well. happy adminship anniversary!!! I appreciate all that you do. by the way, is it possible to close the section at ANI relating to my recent edits and posts? I have expressed my regrets, and my thanks to those who provided important feedback. I hope you don't mind me writing to you in this manner; I have discussed some items with you on occasion, so I felt I could contact you. I contacted one other admin about this as well, but I don't plan to contact anyone else on this. I appreciate any help, if possible. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: thanks for your note, and I'm glad you felt free to ask me. However, I don't spend much time on the drama boards, and am not sure of the conventions for closure. To close it would probably require a bit of time to look into what has been raised there. I will leave it to the regulars, if you don't mind. And there may yet be further useful guidance for you. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi.; ok, that sounds fine. I appreciate your note, and your reply. happy adminship anniversary again. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie[edit]

Sorry, looks like I just recreated something you deleted in order to make a category move. Sorry for that. Category:Dunedin Sound albums. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: No problem – thanks for the note. – Fayenatic London 00:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous


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

Nomination for deletion of Template:BDDecadesInCenturyNoHyphen[edit]

Template:BDDecadesInCenturyNoHyphen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calvin College faculty[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

This category is marked for Speedy rename but I don't see it listed there. It's an empty category now, can it be marked for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks. Somebody had created a new category page. I have now moved the old page over the new one (which I requested when I listed it),[5] as Ymblanter had redirected the old one instead. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have seen that the old one was not converted to redirect and just did it (the bot sometimes ignores such requests). Please feel free to undo / histmerge / whatever.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everything is resolved. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CfD: Pages/Articles including recorded pronunciations[edit]

I'm perplexed by what you mean by this. It sounds like you're saying whether to delete the categories hinged on whether they were added through templates, which is not true. To remove—not delete—manual additions was a secondary proposal in case the primary one, i.e. to delete all categories except the parent (which I've stricken), failed to gain consensus. But it did, or at least did not find any opposition for the almost two months it was open. Nardog (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: OK, I have revised my close to remove that condition. For info, I intend to add a link to the diffs in case anyone wants to trace what was removed. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: For the last step, templates need changing e.g. for the page Stonávka. Do you know what change needs to be made, please?
Or I could change the close to "no consensus" on that one (articles split from pages) and leave it, as the comments about that are less clear; but many articles are currently in the "pages" parent already. – Fayenatic London 00:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No template needs changing because Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations is also only added by manual insertions. All pages in Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations are added through templates. Nardog (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, I thought Stonávka had that category without the usual -± Hotcat buttons, but apparently I was not looking properly. I was also mistaken to think that you had omitted to list two sub-cats on the CFD page – thanks for tidying it.
For the record, I merged the Wikidata items for Pages and Articles,[6] after merging the categories in the only other wiki that had both.[7] – Fayenatic London 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For much help behind the scenes of Wikipedia. PPEMES (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Hey, thanks for providing a link to the discussion on the talk pages - however, I take issue with you modifying my comment and leaving my signature as if what you wrote is what I contributed. Next time, just drop me a line and I'll make the change myself. Hmlarson (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Thanks, point taken.
I judged that it might be better to merge the discussions immediately like that in case people started responding to them separately in ways that would be harder to merge later. I confess that I didn't check whether you were still online at the time. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayman Mitchell AfD[edit]

Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem[edit]

Hi, if you want to be rude to me, please do it on my user page and I'll give you your fair share back. Don't cast aspersions in edit comments, thanks, especially when you haven't adequately checked your facts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the above refers to [8] "reinstate Radagast, removed by user:Chiswick Chap on 12 Feb 2020 without explanation – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radagast was closed as Keep"
In that edit I was intending to be purely factual, and was referring to [9]. The edit summary "update" did not provide an explanation. I pinged you as a courtesy, since I was mentioning you, not intending any offence. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the additional facts that I was unaware of are at Talk:Radagast#Merge. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to hear it, but it's something I sincerely dislike as it can't be erased and can't be rebutted in situ except by the drastic means of a null edit, maybe I will do that.
For your information, I had WP:BOLDly merged the article as non-notable, and then removed links to it. Given that there really aren't any reliable secondary sources this should have been the end of the matter, but someone saw fit to revert the merge a month later. That's the tale. I've had enough of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have done a null edit myself, had you asked. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects[edit]

Hey, I was wondering what the guideline/policy was on category redirects. Are category redirects like Category:British aircraft 1950-1959 really useful? --Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a prime example of a redirect that is definitely no longer worth keeping. It was useful when first created as a redirect from hyphen to dash.[10]
See WP:Category redirects that should be kept, an essay by me which I believe has consensus support. – Fayenatic London 12:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a speedy deletion criteria for these? Or do these need to be nominated as a regular discussion? --Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G6 is sufficient for summary deletion of category redirects that are obsolete or otherwise useless. Admins will see a pre-filled link to do so. Non-admins could leave {{db-g6}}, with a rationale if the case for deletion is not obvious. – Fayenatic London 12:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did a first batch. Will slowly get this set eventually all G6. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: If it would be less work to make a list, I could get the bot to delete them, under the original CFD log date.
Hang on, I may be able to automate this. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a list at User:Fayenatic london/sandbox and will process this in batches.
This is based on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 19, first column only, with dashes changed to hyphens. Some at the top and bottom did not currently exist.[11]
Yes, this is working. – Fayenatic London 17:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, even better! I added some missing categories from the CfD list. --Gonnym (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of batch deleting the ones that were left. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! You are very welcome to take such liberties here. Thank you, JJMC89.
In case anyone is interested: as I don't have any fancy programming tools/skills, I use Microsoft Word and Excel to do bulk edits on such lists. Both are good for search-and-replace. To split the columns, I replace " to " with "^t" in Word, which inserts a tab character. Then I copy the lot and paste into Excel, which by default recognises the tab as a column break, so it automatically puts the text into two columns. Excel is good for replacing within one column but not another (which was not required in this case). Of course there are many other ways to do such work, but these are the tools that work for me. – Fayenatic London 07:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more that were missing to the list. --Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I use exactly the same Word/Excel strategies (which also work in LibreOffice). Oculi (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect question. Are category redirects from date-range issues (example: Category:Battles of the Chadian Civil War (2005–10)) valid redirects? --Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say these are valid. That should be added into the essay. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you delete the Category:1850-1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons set of categories? I tagged them all but then User:Liz removed them all instead. --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of janitors[edit]

Notice

The article List of janitors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a list of famous janitors (are there any? with COVID, maybe there will be soon), but a list of notable people who once worked as janitors. This is no more relevant than would be list of notable people who once worked in retail - everyone started somewhere.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of janitors for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of janitors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of janitors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Years in[edit]

I missed out all the ones with 'by' in the name as I knew this needed an 'and' and couldn't be bothered to check which way round it should be. Complete list is at User:Oculi/monk, If you wait a bit nearly all should be red links. Oculi (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It looks like I got them all in the end. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's this one: Category:Women's sport by country by year (created by BHG). I think this should be Category:Women's sport by year and country (cf Category:Women's sport by country and year). Perhaps you could cast an unconfused eye over this. Oculi (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Category:Sport by country and year, Category:Rugby league by country and year and Category:Cricket by country and year can't both be right. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good catches. Category:1884 in women's sport by country should be in Category:Women's sport by year and country, and Category:American women's sport by year should be in Category:Women's sport by country and year. The rugby one is wrong too. I'll nominate these.– Fayenatic London 10:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are now fixed. However, I acknowledge that the naming convention is not intuitive, so I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categories_by_this_and_that. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

hymn scat

Thank you for quality articles such as Fuzao by Faye Wong, Education Endowment Foundation and King Edward Memorial Park, for expanding and rescuing, such as Michael Perry (hymnwriter), for help from 2006, also gnomish and admin help, for "I am still learning all the time", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2379 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: What a lovely prize! Thank you very much. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion on WT:HED[edit]

A discussion which may be relevant to you is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting topics relating to categories you have contributed to (such as Durham University stubs), and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects those pages. Your views and input would be most welcome! It would also be useful to have an administrator involved, especially one who might bring an out-of-project perspective. Shadowssettle(talk) 13:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan and Alcohol[edit]

Hi Fayenatic london, Following my deletion of this material [[12]], there is a discussion of Bob Dylan and Alcohol here: Talk:Bob_Dylan#Alcohol. Any comments you wish to make are welcome. Mick gold (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but I'm not sure I have anything to add there.
I'd have more to say about Mick Gold, currently missing from List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters. But you probably knew that. [13]
Best wishes – Fayenatic London 22:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks. Please don't worry about Leanne, she's fine. She survived the Borg altercation and is still kibitzing in San Francisco. Mick gold (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
❤️❤️❤️❤️ – Fayenatic London 08:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?[edit]

Are you there because I want to say "Happy Easter" SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserz: Thank you! I'm here (online) now. I'm in London, so I was asleep when you left your message.
Would you like to say a little about yourself on your user page? Wikipedia:Babel suggests a useful way to start. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions: first of all, thanks for the closure (quite a pickle!). Here's a suggestion though for a little amendment to your closure (if you'd think that a wise thing): you suggest "... there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus ..." as a possible next step. Based on what was discussed during the CfD another "next step" suggestion (not excluding the one you already mentioned) may however make sense too, that is, find consensus on more explicit guidance, (e.g. WP:C2C's "... category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined ..." – my emphasis) – writing such clear definition(s) for a category naming scheme (as opposed to the insufficient "mentioning in passing" in the naming conventions at the time the March 24 CfD was initiated) and finding consensus for such description(s) in line with the current structure of the categorisation tree may allow to avoid lengthy and recurring CfD debates on similar composition-related categories. Anyhow, that's the route I'd take (without waiting, possibly indefinitely, until the next CfD is proposed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. Perhaps an RFC at WT:NCM on music category names, rather than going straight to CFD? Ah, I see you have started a discussion there; would you like me to signpost it from the CFD close? – Fayenatic London 10:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "signpost it from the CFD close" not really, too early stages yet. No, just mentioning the option that developing (and finding consensus for) clearer guidance, so that next time "WP:Naming conventions (music) is conclusive", and that "claims that WP:Naming conventions (music) is conclusive on this matter were rebutted" would no longer apply, is a possibility apart from going to the next CfD. Where such update to the guidance would find broad consensus (if it can) is still open in this stage (first a guidance text that has enough support to be proposed on a wider scale needs to be worked out), but an RfC within a few weeks may definitely be an option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I definitely don't want to exclude a mixed approach of both approaches either: e.g. music-related WikiProjects giving it their utmost to develop a consistent guidance on the matter, but before it gets confirmed by RfC, someone launching a new CfD (per the current "next step" advice in the CfD closure), in which case the new CfD might confirm the guidance as developed, or work as a "back to the drawing boards" too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you are just "thinking aloud" on my page if it helps you work out your ideas. But so far, I find that you are making contradictory points, and I have little idea what you would like me to add to the close. How about: "Perhaps broad consensus could first be sought for music category names at WP:NCM." – Fayenatic London 11:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change the last paragraph of your closure, currently:

It is not clear why Category:Compositions needs disambiguating but not the categories for compositions by date or setting, so there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus. Nevertheless it is clear that no changes should happen on the authority of the discussion below.

...to something like:

It is not clear why Category:Compositions needs disambiguating but not the categories for compositions by date or setting, so there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus, and/or for a clarification on the point in the relevant guidance. Nevertheless it is clear that no changes should happen on the authority of the discussion below.

(proposed addition highlighted). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would add nothing to the close to add that vague statement of the obvious. I will add what I suggested above. – Fayenatic London 12:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ieee societies proposed for deletion[edit]

[14] with all due respect, but aren't you overdoing it a bit? IEEE is an institution with many ramifications, all of which are relevant in their field. I guess you are overdoing it. -- Kku (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is with the mass prod? Do you truly believe that these IEEE prods are uncontroversial deletions, all with no recourse to alternatives to deletion, such as merge? Knowing you as an experienced, quite sensible editor, this seems unlike you. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! While I agree with deleting non-notable articles, I must ask how familiar are you with the field of Electrical Engineering. I ask because of your bulk proposal to delete many IEEE societies. If you are not in the field, it's entirely plausible you've never heard of them, but that does not mean they are non-notable. IEEE is huge, and so the societies themselves are large - Circuits and Systems, the one I'm most familiar with, has about 17,000 members. (I don't know how this compares with societies you are more familiar with, such as the Biblical Creation Society, but I'd not be surprised if it's similar or greater.) Distinguished members comprise almost all the experts in a field. Winning an award from one of these societies is considered a huge technical accomplishment, achieved only be the top professors at top universities, and typically the subject of a press release [15] [16], UC Berkeley lists them on the same page as Nobel prize winners [17], and so on. The societies are mentioned often in the trade press, a reliable source. [18][19][20] and many more. Circuits and Systems in notable for sure, and I suspect the others as well. LouScheffer (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your polite questions. I've had one of these pages on my watchlist for years, tagged with multiple problems that have never been addressed. Nearly all the articles on IEEE Societies are referenced from WP:primary sources alone, and they make no claims to any grounds of notability. A lot of them are just directories e.g. lists of publications, past officers or conferences, which are of very little or no encyclopedic value.
By all means add citations from third-party sources to prove notability for each society according to WP:ORG, and we will all be happy.
I would not object to redirecting any of the society pages to IEEE, or merging such information as would enhance the main article. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see use of User:Joeytje50/JWB to have this batch of WP:PROD deletions marked as WP:MINOR to avoid showing on watchlists an abuse of Joeytje50's tool. Its fairly obvious it might be controversial and therefore inappropriate for PROD. Bult stuff like this should probably be raised as a WikiProject discussion first. How much distraction will this cause to a lot of people? Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between "topic not notable" and "topic not sourced". I believe that an editor, if they think something not notable, should at least try a google search to see if there are 3rd party references that are not reflected in the article. Take for example, the "Antennas and Propagation" society (I took this example since I know nothing about it personally). Do a google search ' "IEEE Antennas and Propagation" site:*.edu' (the site: portion keeps from finding all the IEEE self references in IEEE.org). You will find hundreds of references to the society, many notable (mostly awards, scholarship, standards, etc. See for example Mahta Moghaddam Elected President of IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society , the second hit in my google search). So it's clear the society is notable, just not referenced. I fully realize the lack of reliable, non-primary sources mentioned in the article may bug you, but I think it verges on trolling to threaten to delete actually notable pages to try to force others to do more work. Much more in the spirit of Wikipedia, in my opinion, is that if your google search reveals a reliable 3rd party mention, then include it in the article. It's a little more work, but I think more public spirited. LouScheffer (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly owe you all an apology for marking the edits as minor. That is optional within JWB, but I had paid not attention to that box when using the tool. Mea culpa. If I do not withdraw the PRODs, and they have not been removed by others, I must follow them up with a non-minor edit to each page stating the PROD again in the edit summary.
As for the 3rd-party citations you suggested, I am not convinced that these easily demonstrate Wikipedia notability for the organisation. Sure, each society is notable in its professional field, but for a general purpose encyclopaedia – that is not so obvious. And some of the current articles struck me as so poor that little would be lost from starting again. – Fayenatic London 21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as engineering world references not being notable, perhaps it's worthwhile to note that there are roughly as many engineers worldwide as there are in many religious subgroups, such as Mormons. And you could easily argue that the impact of the engineer's world (such as WiFi and mobile phones) is at least on par with many religious subgroups which are covered in Wikipedia. LouScheffer (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go an wreak havoc with a series of articles (a little redundant, maybe) circled around a serious technological society, why not try sharpening your claws in the universe of Category:Lists_of_fictional_characters or similar (very, very, very redundant)? There is a lot to explore, I can assure you. I find the double standards by which the entire entertainment stuff is hyped, maintained and nourished vs. the restrictions placed on real-world lemmata more and more absurd. -- Kku (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I have trimmed a lot of WP:NOTDIRECTORY from Technical Committee on VLSI, resolving and removing four cleanup banners from the page. I'm sorry you consider that to be havoc, but IMHO this was horrible and this is more encyclopedic, although still lacking secondary sources and failing to state its grounds for notability under WP:ORG. If somebody else wants to do the work on other Society pages, let them go ahead. – Fayenatic London 11:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
For your message being sent in common welfare of Wikipedia Page IEEE Education Society. ItWiki97 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Trill symbiont" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trill symbiont. Since you had some involvement with the Trill symbiont redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CFD[edit]

Thanks for the pointers; I really appreciate your advice, seeing as you've been involved with CFD for so long. It always felt like an intimidating backlog to work on because of the whole WP:CFD/W system, but I read up on it coming out of my extended absence to try to help cutdown on some admin backlogs. I notice that CFDs tend to accumulate categories as the discussion goes on, but sometimes it's not completely certain that the consensus extends towards the subsequent additions. I'll keep in mind relists for next time, though I feel for the sake of better discussion it's better to close what one can and encourage further CFDs later. What do you look for to assess those kinds of situations? bibliomaniac15 17:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about consensus affecting later additions. If I relist and add sub-cats where I can see that different arguments might apply, I ping all the precious participants.
I seek to avoid a situation where a trial case goes one way but the wider hierarchy foreseeably goes the other way, especially if it would be a lot of work to reverse the outcome of the trial case. But if there is a clear consensus, I don't want throw it into a pot that would likely result in a mess.
Also, when closing where there is not complete consensus, I look for whether something constructive can be done even for a subset of the proposals.
Hope these scattered thoughts are helpful. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Welcome Message[edit]

Thank You. As I'm a newbie so I don't know much.I'm seeing forward to edit more and contribute more positively on Wikipedia. Thanks once again for a warm Welcome.:)--ItWiki97 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2020

"Category:Media in Brazilia" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Media in Brazilia. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Media in Brazilia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding removing of second paragraph from Zamindars of Bihar[edit]

Hii, I wanted to ask a favour from you that please again put the Second Paragraph of this above mentioned page of Zamindars of Bihar. I think I have contacted the Wrong Person Abecedare belonging from Brahmin Community who may change or vandalise the pages to make or show Brahmins in a High way and other Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs in low position. PLease see that other Users like Sitush and Kautilya3 doesn't even touch this article as they definitely belong from Brahmin Community and had previous vandalised or made some changes to other articles to show them inferior to Brahmins in every possible way. I am also giving proofs to back-up my claims that Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs holded more than 73% land of Bihar Region. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/18863/12/12_chapter%204.pdf http://gad.bih.nic.in/Circulars/CN-01-07-05-2015.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItWiki97 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ItWiki97: please wp:Assume good faith from your fellow editors, and discuss the matter objectively at Talk: Zamindars of Bihar. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fayenatic. Thank you for your reply. I feel sorry for what I have done. Now I know where I have gone wrong and did wrong.From next time onwards, I will comply with all the rules of Wikipedia and would surely discuss about the subject-matter on it's Discussion/Talk page before making other changes on the particular article. Also, I will see that no other Wikipedian editor is being offended by me. But Please Guide me in the future.ItWiki97 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97[reply]

No problem! Do feel free to message me here if you need help again. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. Thank You. :) ItWiki97 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirects for the benefit of Navseasoncats[edit]

Hi FL

I have just created Category:European Commissioners 1999–2003 as a cat redirect to Category:European Commissioners 1999–2004, to assist {{Navseasoncats}} with the change in length of season for 4 years to 5.

ISTR that there is some template which tags such redirected to categories to indicate that they exist for the benefit of {{Navseasoncats}}, and thereby hopefully deter some of the over-enthusiastic deleters of category redirects.

However, I have no idea what that template is called. Can you help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, it's Template:R from category navigation. I found it after a hunt, and was going to add a link at the bottom of {{navseasoncats}}… but there already is one!
Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept also mentions it. – Fayenatic London 19:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, FL. I dunno how I missed it at Template:Navseasoncats#See_also. Maybe I need to take my foot off the pedal, and get my speed-reading down to more legal speeds.
It turned out that the duration of early EU Commissions was more haphazard than I thought, so I will have to dump Navseasoncats from that series and write a custom navbox. But it's handy to know for the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by disability merge[edit]

Hi @Fayenatic london:, not sure if you had seen my reply on the Category talk:Wikipedians by disability page. That's fine by me. D Eaketts (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have completed that merge now. I was waiting for you as I thought you meant you were going to edit the subcategory pages yourself. – Fayenatic London 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for you to merge it, then i was going to edit the subcategories. Sorry for the confusion. D Eaketts (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft categories[edit]

Is there an easy way to apply the draft cat tag, as in this diff? Also I would be most grateful if someone could close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Category:Defunct_mass_media, which has excited no opposition. Oculi (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know any easy way to do this; I just do it manually – although SwiftKey has learned to suggest it. The unnecessary colons can of course be removed using the search and replace tool in the editor, if there are a lot as in that example. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a bit irritating to find drafts in categories. Will investigate Swiftkey.
There's a User:Cycn who is systematically emptying categories in Norway (some with 5 or more pages) and then putting them up for deletion. Could this be stopped? (Eg this had 11 pages.) Oculi (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well that example seems to be in good faith, as Aust-Agder is a former county that has been merged. No need to revert IMHO, WP:IAR, but I will ask him to use CFD from now on. – Fayenatic London 14:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media people[edit]

I too have reservations about whether all 'media' should be changed to 'mass media'. Eg 'media personalities'. The bulk rename by Marcocapelle changed the subcats of Category:Media people by nationality but not the parents. Nearly all these country subcats are in fact container categories so maybe all 'media people' cats should be tagged as such (to stop Rathfelder creating anomalies such as the Manchester one). Oculi (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi and BrownHairedGirl: Ah, I had not realised that most had already been renamed via a full CFD. Well, in that case the few remaining might as well go ahead speedily. Shall we redirect them, FWIW? Do either of you have a tool that would create redirects for the previous set, or protect them (whether redirected or nonexistent) en masse? – Fayenatic London 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic & @Oculi: I can't really comment, because I am not clear what set of categories is involved. Please can you clarify? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: it's the "media people" categories that were included in the middle third of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 18. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic: I found 198 nationality-variants of Category:Welsh media people to Category:Welsh mass media people. (That figure of 198 includes US states)
I think that you want a redirect from old title to new. Have I got that right?
(Sorry if I sound like a dense pedant. I am a bit slow today, so I wanna check). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: that's my suggestion, yes. Do we think it's worth doing to reduce the risk of re-creations? Would we also want to protect them? – Fayenatic London 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic, I think it is probably worth doing, because re-creations would be a nuisance. My only caveat is that these are overwhelmingly used as container categories, so I think that the risk of re-creation is low. Some editors are very cautious about creating category redirects, and they would probably rule this set out on grounds of low risk ... but I don't share those caveats, so I'd be happy to go ahead if you and Oculi want me to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.bibliomaniac15 05:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bibliomaniac15: I'm busy today – may have time to look into this tomorrow. – Fayenatic London 14:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate. bibliomaniac15 17:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that may be the longest Wikibreak I have taken for some time! Probably good for me. Please excuse me – busy IRL.
I've replied by email. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've responded back. bibliomaniac15 23:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I've replied at last. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For my reference, this was about WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s. See also User_talk:Bibliomaniac15#Television_program(me)s_CFD and Wikipedia:Move_review#WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Television_program(me)s. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy[edit]

I happened to notice that an eager editor has deleted Category:Half-Life_(series)_mass_media which was the intended speedy target of Category:Half-Life_media, which has left Category:Half-Life_mass_media as a populated red-link. Oculi (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: I have reinstated and populated that category… but duh, it's wrong! {{media}} should not be using the phrase "mass media"; it is for Wikipedia media files. Most are images; do you know if any sound files use {{media}}? If not then all these cases using "mass media" and all of Category:Video game media could be changed to "images". – Fayenatic London 11:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I had earlier decided that it would be foolish to rename (say) a music media category to use mass media but then a few crept in. I don't have any views on {{media}}. There are .ogg files categorised as audio samples: Category:Non-free audio samples by artist. Category:Wikipedia images includes album covers. Category:Wikipedia files seems to include both. Oculi (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Reihan Salam draft[edit]

Yes, please feel free to move or merge or copy over that draft of mine. Obviously I kind of put it aside and then lost touch with it. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: As you may have realised, I come across a lot of these user drafts when updating links to categories after renaming.
I think that it would be your privilege to update the article. You did such a thorough rewrite that you should probably first merge the intervening changes to the live article [21] into your draft, and then overwrite the live page from your updated draft. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it in the next day or so, thanks. BD2412 T 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and did it. I think the interim changes were things I had already covered, just organized differently. There is nothing particularly new. BD2412 T 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climate change deniers has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Climate change deniers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letters by alphabet[edit]

Special:Diff/956521992/956523992

Just a reminder. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  Done – Fayenatic London 12:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For my own future reference, can you let me know the exact procedure that you performed in this case? bibliomaniac15 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English Jews of the Tudor period has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:English Jews of the Tudor period has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIR[edit]

Please dont do this again, it is nonsense. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the subsequent edit has not deleted the reinstated "ref name=nccih16" which you apparently deleted in error. That was the key intention of my edit, as your edit summary only referred to one citation while you were removing two. I apologise for not checking whether the adjacent sentence was supported by the citations. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to count. meh. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget meh, I only deleted one useless ref with that edit, not two. please remember that deleting a link to a named reference does not delete the ref itself. I feel better now. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peace be with you. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Ainur" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Ainur. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Template:Ainur until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy...[edit]

Hey, Fayenatic london. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! This was especially nice to receive when getting back on line after a broadband outage. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Legacy Recordings from Essential albums[edit]

Fayenatic london Why are you removing Legacy Recordings from Essential albums? I'm just wondering.

JukeboxMan1990 (talk) 8:41 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@JukeboxMan1990: You mean like this?[22]
Seeing it printed like that, I concede that the edit summary "Removing from Category:Legacy Recordings compilation albums in sub-cat Category:The Essential" could be a bit cryptic.
What I meant in full is, "Removing from Category:Legacy Recordings compilation albums because the page is that category's sub-category Category:The Essential – see WP:SUBCAT."
I was using a tool which allows me to add an explanation, and all that I inserted there was "in sub-cat Category:The Essential". I accept that this did not come out very clearly as part of the full edit summary, and I will try to write out the explanation more fully in future.
Hope this helps. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Okay I understand now thanks Fayenatic london.

JukeboxMan1990 (talk) 8:12 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You know how you are Removing Legacy Recordings from the article you mention above, Would you be able to add the correct running time from AllMusic on the article and adding charts to the article that charted?

JukeboxMan1990 (talk) 10:22 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@JukeboxMan1990: Thanks for the suggestion, but I mainly work on categories, and we have some heavy-duty projects underway at the moment.
Do you need help or guidance to add this info yourself? – Fayenatic London 18:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive23&oldid=1146396798"