User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive26

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 – July 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange question[edit]

I was on a Wikipedia category page looking at its title when I wondered if a project category namespace was ever considered (separating the content category namespace from the project one. Even possible?). Thought I'd ask you as if anyone would know it would be you :) Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment :) but I have no idea. @Jc37 and Good Olfactory: you were doing category stuff way before me, so perhaps you might weigh in on this? – Fayenatic London 16:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question? If you mean a separate category space for non-articles, I think they've kinda been trying to use Meta for that, but it's slow in implementation/development. I think it's partially an overhead issue. kinda like why they don't allow cross-site transclusion.
One interesting example though, did you know that if you create your user page on meta, it'll show on all the other wikimedia sites as your userpage if you don't already have one there?
Anyway, I guess the answer is I dunno, though I have read that they are apparently starting to shy away from adding more namespaces.
I hope this helps : ) - jc37 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Buildings and structures under construction in Shanghai[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures under construction in Shanghai indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine[edit]

Hi. You closed this discussion and deleted the category “as currently empty.” There is a dispute over the CFD nominator emptying the category without consensus in the CFD, an ongoing dispute about edit-warring over this category at Talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine, and a related ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring. Please un-delete, or let me know if I need to start some kind of appeal procedure. Thanks. —Michael Z. 20:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Z.: I have added further comments at that close, and linked to a follow-up discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_27#Establishments_based_on_first-mentioned_dates is proving to be a surprisingly decisive discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashli Babbitt is a traitor, not a protester.[edit]

Ashli was a traitor who attempted to over throw the government by going against the democratic election results. She stopped being a protester the moment she stepped foot into the capitol. There is no need to be neutral when the facts are she stormed the capitol, entered it illegally and died after being told multiple times to retreat. Instead of retreating she decided to try jumping through a window which would put her in arms reach of politicians she was seeking. I believe calling her a protester is re-writing history and extremely irresponsible.

Also, the protesters were outside, the people who went inside are traitors to the country for trying to overthrow the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.136.50 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By your own words, she had been a protester. (For the record, this relates to [1]) – Fayenatic London 11:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Emilie Autumn songs[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Emilie Autumn songs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Political prisoners[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Political prisoners. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: I note that this DRV has been closed as Overturn to no consensus. Should I now revert the deletions and removals which I implemented after closing the CFD? – Fayenatic London 06:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that you have done most of the work already, undeleting and repopulating the subcats. I will reinstate the top category members which I removed. – Fayenatic London 06:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rollbacked all of the bot's actions during that timeframe, but would have missed any articles that had subsequent edits after the bot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good pointer, thank you. I've undone the remaining bot edits now. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: I have just closed a comparable CFD. Although there was a slight majority this time, as well as good policy reasons given for deletion, I found "no consensus" in line with the DRV. I'd be grateful for your observations on the close. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abrahams (musician)[edit]

Hello, I am Bohemianroots from the Czech Republic. Currently I have created new article Mark Abrahams (musician) which obtain some notices. Could you please help me to improve and enlarge this article? Thanks in advance User:Bohemianroots. Bohemianroots (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemianroots: there may not be sufficient information to justify a standalone article. I found a podcast interview at [2] but have not listened to it.
Consider redirecting the page to Wishbone Ash until there is more to add. – Fayenatic London 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Category:Active Wikipedia database reports[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic_london,

Just a head's up, you may have closed this discussion as "Delete" but bots are re-adding Category:Active Wikipedia database reports to some database reports. I can't see how this will stop until the bots have received new instructions. Right now, it's User:BernsteinBot but there might be other bots that generate database reports that will do this, too. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and thanks for the notice, Liz. I'll leave the task on the page at CFDW a few days and watch for other cases.
@MZMcBride: please note that this category is now deleted and deprecated, so please update your bot's code re e.g. [3] – Fayenatic London 11:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like things are resolved but with bots, you never know when they will recreate a page. I've been trying to find a way to turn off the Version 1.0 bot from updating reports for defunct WikiProjects but it seems once you turn that thing on, it doesn't stop even if there are 0 daily updates for years and years. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet resolved, Liz... [4]
As for stopping assessments, isn't it enough to remove the defunct project categories from Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments? – Fayenatic London 06:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This was a little tricky to track down, but it's coming from <https://github.com/mzmcbride/database-reports/pull/24/files>. Legoktm rewrote database reports in the Rust programming language. It seems reasonable to me to categorize database reports, but we should probably switch to a footer template like {{database reports footer}} or similar so that the category or explanatory text or whatever can be added, removed, or modified without needing to touch bot code. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went with {{DBR footer}} to match the current naming convention. All future edits should use the new template (currently blank) instead of explicitly adding the category. Legoktm (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userscript for moving files[edit]

I noticed you move files manually and update the filenames in articles manually as well. As updating filenames is a drag I created LuckyRename some time ago, you may want to give it a try. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My edits to file pages are probably mostly recategorising rather than moving them, but I'll try to remember this in case of need. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of albums longer than 70 minutes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of albums longer than 70 minutes 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 albums longer than 70 minutes 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) 06:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_27#Establishments_based_on_first-mentioned_dates[edit]

Hey there, I closed this discussion, but I am not sure what actions there are to take about this, if any. Is there maybe a category guideline page where the consensus from this CFD could be slipped in, maybe? bibliomaniac15 03:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: Thank you, I have added a line at the end of WP:NONDEFINING. I also noted the outcome at WT:YEARS, Talk:Moscow and the talk page where the disagreement had started. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian television series by production location[edit]

I noticed that you tagged all of the remaining "series produced in" subcategories in Category:Canadian television series by production location, but then didn't add an actual nomination to the CFD page and haven't made any Wikipedia edits at all in the intervening hour. So I just wanted to let you know that since I was literally about to tag them myself for exactly the same purpose anyway, I completed the nomination statement for you just in case something came up that distracted you from Wikipedia. It's at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Category:Television shows filmed in Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat, I was about to relist Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_23#Category:Television_shows_filmed_in_Vancouver and append those. As you didn't change the section heading "Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver" in the CFD templates that I added, I guess I'll just go ahead and do what I was about to do, replacing your nomination. Thanks for your help in completing and compiling the listing. – Fayenatic London 15:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Deaf football[edit]

Hello, Football786. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Deaf football".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Islamophobia[edit]

Thanks Fay! The thing is, Category:Islamophobia should be the top cat for all those sub-cats related to this whole topic - something like in case of Category:Antisemitism. Actually, these two phenomenons - Islamophobia and Antisemitism - are related in their identical phenomenology, and subsequently in academic approach, so I used our categorization of Antisemitism as a model. So, basically Islamophobia is a "parent" cat for both Ant-Muslim and Anti-Islam (also many other, of course), so I used same explanation that we use in Antisemitism - describing it by using either individual categories explanations:
Anti-Islam (and Anti-Judaism for that matter) is described as 1, 2, 3; Anti-Muslim (and Anti-Jewish) as 4, 5, 6; and their parent category Islamophobia (and Antisemitism) is described as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I am guessing, in such cases we make parent cats like these (top cats for particular topics) into container, perhaps, but again, I preferred cat Antisemitism, because in both cases there are some articles that can only fit into Islamophobia (and Antisemitism) category, such as, say, scholarship or book regarding this (broader) phenomenon, and so on. Anyhow, I am open for suggestions if anyone would like to chip in an idea. Thanks, and take care.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another nuance, that could be used to clarify whole thing even further: Jew/Muslim is a person who goes to synagogue/mosque, but Jew/Muslim can be atheist and main ethnic group in Israel/some-Balkan-country or minority ethnic group in other countries; Antisemitism and Islamophobia include them and distinguish between both strains of negative sentiments directed at them - someone could conclude that we should, then, stack them all together under Islamophobia perhaps, however, I can't see why because we use every reasonably convenient opportunity to split categories into sub-categories, and this one certainly qualifies.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiffany (name)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tiffany (name). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 10#Tiffany (name) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer nationality categories[edit]

Please note that all main nationality categories - Category:Spanish footballers, Category:English footballers etc - are non-diffusing. GiantSnowman 14:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Not sure how you caught that! But Category:People from O Morrazo is diffusing, so I have reinstated that part of the edit. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no issues with that, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Robert Rubin draft[edit]

Hello, in July you blanked a draft containing proposed changes to an article in my userspace: User:WWB_Too/Robert_Rubin. You had said it "seems to be no longer required" per the Rubin talk page, but I'm not sure what might have given you this impression. I am still proposing edits to that article and so intend to revert your edit, but first decided I would give you a heads up in case there's anything you'd like to discuss. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WWB Too: Thanks very much for asking. WP:COPYARTICLE says "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." I believe that covers user copies of articles which are re-drafts for discussion, e.g. where a COI has been declared.
It's fine by me for you to reinstate the page as a place to propose further updates. All that I would suggest is that when you & other editors have concluded the ensuing discussion of your re-draft, you then blank it again until such time as it may yet again be required in the future. This complies with COPYARTICLE, and avoids the need for admins to check backlinks when moving categories/other pages linked from that draft. – Fayenatic London 18:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. Draft is now temporarily restored. Also I'll admit, for the last decade I have kept drafts of past COI projects in my userspace, but now that I'm aware of WP:COPYARTICLE I think the best thing would be for me to redirect those drafts to the live articles. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that will be good practice. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RM done[edit]

Hello. The RM for the Cath. canon law task force can be found here. Veverve (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy renaming[edit]

I did not really understand your remarks here. Do you oppose my speedy renaming, and if so why? Veverve (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it while the task force has its current name. I don't accept your denial that there is currently a Canon law task force. But if the task force is renamed following RM process, then the categories can all follow speedily.
So far you have only listed the subcats of Category:Canon Law articles by quality. Please also list that one, and its sibling "by importance" etc. Your list can then be fed to a bot to do the heavy lifting. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting my speedy renaming requests. However, it seems I forgot to add one category:
Category:Canon Law articles needing attention -> Category:Catholic canon law articles needing attention
Could you move the category? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: "needing attention" categories are usually populated by adding |attention=y to the project template on the talk page. I tried that on Talk:Inventory of Church Property and it currently only adds the page to Category:Catholicism articles needing attention, not to any category for canon law articles needing attention. Would you be happy with a merger to that one? – Fayenatic London 21:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a merger would be a good idea.
The move of the WProject Catholic canon law task force has been made. There is still Category:WikiProject Canon Law, Category:WikiProject Canon Law members and Category:Canon Law articles needing attention which should be harmonised with the new name. Veverve (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: please see WP:CFDS and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_18#Category:Canon_Law_articles_needing_attention. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of moths of the United States[edit]

Information icon Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of moths of the United States, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of moths of Mexico[edit]

Information icon Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of moths of Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of moths of Brazil[edit]

Information icon Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of moths of Brazil, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Lorenzo footballers[edit]

Hello, dear, Fayenatic london,

I notice that you correct quite a few category redirects when categories get moved or deleted which is great. I'd like to ask you, when you are making these category redirect corrections, could you also check on the category talk page? Because when category talk pages that have redirects end up on the Broken redirect list, they usually just get deleted rather than corrected. I correct them when I see them but I'm not the only admin who patrols the list. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, Liz. In that case I left one half done last thing at night, pending a second move by the bot, and intended to check it in the morning. But I recognise that meanwhile it then came up on your work list, so you fixed it instead – thanks. No doubt there have been others that I overlooked. I'll try to pick them up more consistently. – Fayenatic London 06:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template script[edit]

Good evening. I was trying to see if I could close this discussion based on your instructions for editing the templates. Now, for example in Template:WikiProject_Bangladesh_Premier_League, I do not see an ATTENTIONCAT parameter, but I do see an ASSESSMENTCAT. I guess the latter is what you intended in your instructions, but I'd rather first check with you before making a mess based on a wrong guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: By default, pages needing attention are categorised in "PROJECT articles needing attention", but where this needs to be overridden, the parameter to use is ATTENTION_CAT. It will need to be added where it is not already in the project template. See Template:WPBannerMeta. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of moths of China[edit]

Information icon Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of moths of China, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Mexico categories[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I noticed that you recently changed some empty "Year in Mexico" categories into category redirects. There are bunch that are due to be deleted tomorrow that you can find in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion if you think it would be better to change them into redirects rather than delete them. Thanks, and I hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirect[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic_london,

It looks like Category:Pakistani film singers is a category redirect to itself. I couldn't figure out where you wanted it to point to so I'm just mentioning it here. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thank you! It was moved to Category:Pakistani playback singers, and the old name now redirects there. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: on the topic of redirects, please may we delete Category:2020 English local elections? User:Tom.Reding says in the edit history that it's no longer needed by the upgraded {{navseasoncats}}. It's causing 2 years to be highlighted at Category:2021 English local elections, and its unnecessary existence causes 2020 to appear spuriously in that template on various other siblings. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, @Liz: Tom.Reding tagged it again with more explanation, and I deleted it without waiting further. – Fayenatic London 13:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-diffusing categories by nationality & profession[edit]

Babydoll edits

Please take more care - you should not be replacing Category:English profession with Category:People from location! GiantSnowman 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted about 15 of these errors - please ensure there are no more, and ensure that any I have missed are corrected. GiantSnowman 16:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: where Babydoll replaced e.g. People from Toxteth with Cricketers from Liverpool, and they were also already in English cricketers, then I thought it was appropriate to (i) remove English cricketers and (ii) reinstate People from Toxteth.
Ah, I see from your edit summaries that this is again the thing you told me above at #Footballer nationality categories about non-diffusing national occupational categories. Sorry, I forgot that rule; like other non-diffusion rules, it is not intuitive. Is it meant to apply only to sportspeople, or to all occupational categories? Also, where is it written, or is it an undocumented consensus? – Fayenatic London 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to all categories as far as I know. A person should be in both Category:Nationality profession with Category:People from location, partly because the latter is not a direct subcategory of the former. GiantSnowman 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even my original edits (which you reverted) had left all the biographies within both those hierarchies. Of course a person should be in both of those hierarchies; the only question is whether or when Category:Nationality profession may be diffused. Your edit summaries referred to "non-diffusing", but where is it stated that e.g. Category:Cricketers from Liverpool is a non-diffusing subcat of its grandparent Category:English cricketers?
As for "It applies to all categories", this alleged non-diffusing rule evidently does not apply to some other professions e.g. Category:English politicians or Category:English male actors, within which the biography articles are mainly diffused by locality, century etc.
So why may not English cricketers[5]/footballers[6]/writers[7] likewise be diffused into their sub-cats by locality, era etc? – Fayenatic London 20:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across User_talk:Rabota15#Categories, so you clearly do understand WP:SUBCAT. Where have you got this idea about national sportsperson categories being non-diffusing? Can you look back in your history and find when you started enforcing it? – Fayenatic London 10:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound like something I have made up. This is clearly a Wikipedia-wide thing, otherwise Category:English footballers and Category:English male actors etc. would all be empty (they are not - big clue!). Notwithstanding that the 'X from Y' categories are a BLP nightmare. GiantSnowman 18:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English footballers was 'made' non-diffusing in 2020 by this edit. Category:English male actors has no such restrictions, but it contains 104 articles whereas its subcat Category:Male actors from London contains over 1000, so it has been considerably diffused. (I would say that someone from London is not necessarily English (or even British) but that is a different issue.) Oculi (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was made an admin in 2012 mainly to work on WP:categories for discussion, and for some periods I was doing practically all the admin at CFD for months or years at a time by myself; and I don't remember coming across this rule before this year. If it was established by consensus, whether at CFD or by RfC, it ought to have been documented at at least one of WP:PEOPLECAT or WP:DIFFUSE, but there is no mention of it there.
You have evidently been enforcing it for at least a year and a half, and perhaps a great deal longer, but you can't tell me where it came from. You claim that "it is clearly a Wikipedia-wide thing", but in practice it clearly is not being applied to all occupations.
Perhaps Oculi's observation does point up the need for the rule, especially for sportspeople, as so many sportspeople work as expatriates. In other words, there are footballers from Liverpool who are not English, and therefore, English footballers should not be diffused by location.
But I don't see the case for applying it to other occupations such as writers.
I suggest that we either post a question at WT:CAT asking about the rationale and scope of this rule, or just be bold and add it to Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_nationality_and_occupation for sportspeople and then see if it sticks. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, although we have come up with a rationale for not diffusing English cricketers by location, I can't see why Category:English cricketers of the 21st century and the rest of English cricketers by era should be non-diffusing. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that we have many, many examples of people like Pascal Jansen - Dutch national but born in London. Conflating 'X from Y' and 'Z footballers' does not work. More so in sports, but for all professions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for belatedly coming up with a rationale, but Oculi beat you to it. I neither know nor care who Pascal Jensen is; there are plenty of notable expatriate sportspeople who do have articles in English Wikipedia. Can we now move on to what we will do to seek consensus about this rule and document its scope? or first address whether we may diffuse English cricketers by era? – Fayenatic London 17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're the self-declared category expert, you tell me... PS it's Jansen, not Jensen, mea culpa. GiantSnowman 17:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the "something I made up", it does appear that way from your conversation with Rathfelder [8] [9] on the day that you tagged English footballers (30 March 2020),[10] as your justification for it on his talk page was WP:COMMONSENSE.
I found an earlier "non-diffusing" banner on Icelandic footballers from 2017,[11] but that was to say that international and expatriate footballers are non-diffusing – you did not mention the equivalent sub-cats when you tagged the English category, so you don't appear to have been following that as a precedent.
Within Chinese footballers, Chinese women's footballers was tagged as a non-diffusing sub-cat by Engr. Smitty in 2018,[12] which is in accordance with WP:EGRS. Strangely, this is NOT followed in English, Icelandic etc. The other sub-cats e.g. Footballers by city or town in China are not stated to be non-diffusing, although in practice I think that one is (see PetScan).
So: you, Oculi and I seem to be in agreement that footballers by town/city should not be diffusing sub-categories of footballers by nationality, and this might be applied more widely among sportspeople; but it seems that this has not been documented anywhere other than English footballers. Have you seen it being applied to other nationalities of footballers?
Moreover, I can't find any hint of a general rule for other occupations, and I don't consider it desirable to start one. I don't think expatriates will be as common among other occupations that have hierarchies within Category:People by occupation and city.
E.g. within Category:Scientists by country and city, UK and India are currently the only ones whose category name does not assume that residence and nationality go together (Scientists by city in the United Kingdom, cf. American scientists by city). However, on reflection, that's not a useful example anyway, as scientists are mostly diffused by speciality.
So for William Charles Townsend, I'm inclined to revert you, and treat Category:Writers from Liverpool as diffusing English writers. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it seems obvious to me that many editors find non-diffusing categories very confusing. We should avoid them unless the benefit is very clear as they often dont work. I also think its easy to get too obsessive about nationality. People who migrate may change their nationality, but this is rarely noted in the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian fooers[edit]

I understand that the Nationality parameter for the Collectivity of Saint Martin will need to be updated from Saint Martin to Saint Martinois. Template:Fooian fooers is only linked to four categories: Category:Saint Martin sports coaches, Category:Saint Martin educators, Category:Saint Martin women in politics and Category:Saint Martin women by occupation. However, I don't understand the purpose of the template, could you explain it in a couple of sentences, or should I not worry too much? Should some of the Northern Irish categories I have just nominated use Template:Fooers from Northern Ireland, which they currently don't? TSventon (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: The purpose of the template is to provide easy navigation up multiple levels of the parent category hierarchies. You can see it in use at Category:Saint Martin educators; if you click on the "People" link within it there, it currently takes you to the old name Category:Saint Martin people which is currently a redirect.
I could tweak {{Fooian fooers}} to resolve a category redirect, but am not sure that that would be helpful.
If you are about to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Category:People_from_the_Collectivity_of_Saint_Martin as Alt 1, then I think you have the right idea already, that "nationality=Saint Martin" should be changed to "nationality=Saint Martinois" within the template on those sub-cats, but this will only work when the sub-cats themselves have also been (speedily) renamed.
For all the Saint Martin categories I think it would be better to paste the tailored version from Category:Saint Martin politicians which has been tweaked by Place Clichy to include an extra layer for France/French. I think BrownHairedGirl was once testing an additional parameter ParentNationality in "Fooian fooers", but this was not implemented after all.
And yes, I understand that Template:Fooers from Northern Ireland is designed to work on the NI occupational categories, using the proposed target names. {{Fooers from Boo}} should work on other countries using that naming format. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, hopefully that will make sense once the full discussion is closed. I did the nomination, so I don't think I can close it. I have a list of speedy nominations ready for when it is closed. TSventon (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were right, you should not close that one; but I decided that I was not barred from doing so, and have closed it as Category:Saint Martinois people. This will be processed shortly. Please nominate the sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 17:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for closing the discussion and moving the society nomination, I have nominated the people sub-cats. Wouldn't I need to be an admin to close CfD speedy discussions? I haven't updated Fooian fooers yet. TSventon (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: non-admins are generally welcome to close full CFD discussions, see WP:NAC. Just avoid closing discussions where you were WP:INVOLVED. If the result is rename / merge /delete, and there are more than a few members (so that it's worth using the bot), then list it at WT:CFDW for an admin to copy to the protected page. WP:CFDAI is the full info about closing CFD discussions. As for speedy discussions, sure, leave those to admins. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: my mistake, I see from Category:Saint Martinois women in politics that ParentCountry and ParentNationality have been implemented in {{Fooian fooers}}. Please would you write them up on the template's /doc page? – Fayenatic London 21:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I'm sorry, but right now I am up to my neck in Bare URLs, managing about 5 difft process streams in parallel, and don't have the headspace to do docs. Would you be able to do it? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you[13]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I didn't want to take credit for your work. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

User:Brancrandran was blocked as a sockpuppet and many of his categories were deleted via CSD G5 although some were not empty (I myself have deleted the empty ones). However, WP:BANREVERT states that

Since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned user. Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme should be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright.

I expect the nonempty categories will show up on Special:WantedCategories when it next updates on November 10, 2021 and I wanted to check in with another admin before taking action. I'd like to restore those categories that were deleted before they were emptied. Now that I'm familiar with the policy stated above, I untag nonempty categories I see tagged for G5 deletion when I see them in a Speedy Deletion category unless there are a small number of pages in the category (say, 6 or fewer) where I can easily remove the pages from the category. I understand there are tools that exist that can handle mass removal of pages from a category but I am not familiar with them. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been undeleting the ones with three or more members, so that they can be nominated for deletion, or kept if valid and useful – I undeleted a couple of his "essayists" categories which are small but fine. WP:Cat-a-lot may be the tool that you are referring to, but when I come to the deleted LGBT categories with one or two members, I've been recategorising those pages manually. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also undeleted one-member categories of socialist feminists, as the parent was Kept per recent discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_14#Category:Socialist_feminists_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Brancrandran's Category:Northern Irish Marxist writers for speedy renaming. Should it be renamed and then possibly deleted? TSventon (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine to speedily rename for consistency, and then start a discussion on deletion. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help once there is a plan. Northern Irish Marxist writers includes 2 articles, neither of which mention Marx, so it probably could be deleted, but Brancrandran created around 400 extant categories, so I don't think 400 full CfD discussions would be a good idea. TSventon (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Most of the sockpuppet cases I have run into at the CSD categories have been editors who created articles or drafts, it's the first time I've run into a sockpuppet who focused on creating a category structure. I think I have looked into WP:Cat-a-lot before but the thing about tools & scripts on Wikipedia is that there are a handful you rely on to do what you need to do and others that are unfamiliar seem complicated and clumsy. I guess it's just a learning curve thing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Edmondson[edit]

Hi. My attempts to get others to help regarding an editor blanking content from the Nathan Edmondson article, and refusing to discuss the matter, have only been slightly successful. I've contacted three other admins, and put messages on the WikiComics Project talk page, and only two other editors have so far responded. Since you've participated in disputes regarding comics articles before, can you offer your views in the discussions? My analysis of the blanking, which I did at the request of another editor who alerted me to the problem, is here. The subsequent RfC began here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Oceanic Engineering Society[edit]

There are some dubious edits on this by someone who claims in an edit summary to be its secretary, reinstated by someone else who has been dormant for about 6 years. (I see you PROD'ed it a few years ago.) Oculi (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages which use embedded infobox templates with the title parameter[edit]

Hey again, Fayenatic london,

I was looking at the Wanted Categories list and there is this category that you deleted that still has close to 2500 pages in it. Does it just take a while for the bot to reassign all of the pages to a different category? There is also Category:Articles which use infobox templates with no data rows which was deleted but still has over 12,000 pages in it. I don't close discussions at CFD so I'm not sure how speedy the bot is at recategorizing pages. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, yes, please ignore these. They are listed in the relevant section of WP:CFDWM, with counters, ticking away. If it would help you, by all means set up a redirect with {{cfd manual}}. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me about WP:CFDWM. One of these days, I need to learn how to close more complicated WP:CFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, well the implementation can occasionally require some deep template work.
Anyway.. One of those red categories is empty already. – Fayenatic London 23:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of moths of Mexico[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of moths of Mexico".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It always feels strange when Twinkle posts these notices to long-standing, active editors. Of course, you can restore it if you want to return to working on it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Liz. For context, see Draft talk:List of moths of the United States, while it lasts. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar Sahota[edit]

Hello Fayenatic, I were updated content in an article, Mukhtar Sahota to update his latest release but sadly you had removed almost all his content. This page was never touched since 2009 but i were start editing and i were hesitant that what if i messed it up so avoided it. Here are the few references for his biography: 15 year old website [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] so please reinstate it. Praveen Paliwal (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.transum.org/Sahotas/meetmuky.asp
  2. ^ https://www.desiblitz.com/content/mukhtar-sahota-talks-band-music-films-and-bhangra
  3. ^ https://www.simplybhangra.com/interviews/4425-exclusive-interview-with-mukhtar-sahota.html
  4. ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/5SxQsyAuCp6fIqF3eGoirU?autoplay=true
  5. ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/53uZbzOi2ceEDzIboUIx7Y?autoplay=true
@Praveen Paliwal: feel free to write a biography based on the citations that you have found.
Do you happen to know how it was that the Wikipedia biography was exactly the same as https://www.mukhtarsahota.com/bio? i.e. which came first, or which was copied from the other?
If you don't know, then the Wikipedia biography must be rewritten in your own words, not copied from that one. It must not be copied from the cited sources either, because that would be WP:copyright violation. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fayenatic, This is regarding Mukhtar Sahota page, I'm pretty sure biography write-up on Wikipedia was original and his website was come live around in 2013 and biography was took from WP by his managing team. So can i undo those deletions or i have to edit/write that whole page again? and more thing that, Is this kind deletion can happen again?Praveen Paliwal (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praveen Paliwal: thank you. In that case you can reinstate some of the page, and we do not need to worry about WP:COPYVIO from the official site. However, you should only reinstate the statements that are supported by the citations which you are going to add. Moreover, the sentences that were copied from the citations – e.g. from the 15-year old biography – need to be rewritten. Any statements that appear to have been contributed from personal knowledge, rather than from citations, must not be reinstated.
In practice I think you will need to rewrite the biography one part at a time, adding the citations one by one as you rewrite the facts that are based on them, rather than undoing the deletion. – Fayenatic London 20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Police shootings categories[edit]

I noticed you'd made some edits around Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States and its new sibling category Category:African people shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States‎; if you're intersted, your thoughts would be welcome in the following discussions (which I started after the second CfD) about how specific articles and redirects should be categorised:

In each case there's a person categorised as African-American who may or may not be better categorised as African, but there are slightly different complexities in each case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: Sorry, I don't feel I have time to discuss those cases.
But can we clarify here whether a third category is needed for people of African descent e.g. Black British people (neither African people, nor African Americans) killed by US cops? The closer of the CFD seems to have found consensus to create one. However, you made a comment near the end that implies there are currently no articles on such cases.
Pinging user:Marcocapelle here re updating WP:CFDWM accordingly. If there is no need, the {{cfd-manual}} template needs to be removed from the category page too. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:Bibliomaniac15 as the closer of the discussion who may or may not have realized that Category:African people shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States‎ was created during the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bibliomaniac15: perhaps it would be appropriate for you to append the words "if any such cases are found" to your close.– Fayenatic London 07:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure what adding those words to the close would necessarily do, but I added a short addendum that hopefully clarifies that the scope of the close was for that particular discussion only. To User:Arms & Hearts, my comment at the end of my close was only regarding the no consensus towards the proposed target name for that specific discussion, but it doesn't mean that such a category can never be created. If a need is found to create that category (or something filling that role), it could possibly be grounds for a new discussion. bibliomaniac15 19:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused as to what's happened here and think people may be speaking at cross purposes, but I don't think there's anything that needs to be done. The original close referred to a new category for people of African descent, when really the consensus was probably for new category for African people, and that's what's been acted upon. This requires fudging the consensus a bit by ascribing more weight to my argument and Ezlev's, but is really the only option: there aren't any articles that would go in a category for people of African descent (i.e. black people who are neither African nor African-American). So to answer Fayenatic London's original question: no, there's no need for a third category. Bibliomaniac15's close, if it needed revising, needed to say "African people" instead of "people of African descent", but the revision that's been made doesn't do any harm (there may indeed one day be articles to populate a third category), nor did the prior wording, really. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft[edit]

Hey FL, just letting you know I moved the list of corporte mergers article over to the draftsapce, since I think it is better there while I am buliding it out. Thanks for setting it up initially. (and I of course welcome any help you can give over there). Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, best wishes too you. Presumably you'll be adding columns for country, size, date and predecessor companies, and making it a sortable table?
That's exactly my plan. Thanks again, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use User:DannyS712/Cat links.js to make such lists. As you can see above (lists of moths in...), I use this now and then before deleting categories where there is potential for a useful list. Glad that this one was taken up, but I don't think I'll have time to join you in the hard labour (labor!). – Fayenatic London 07:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

You restored some categories (like Category:University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences faculty) that were then immediately deleted. Did you intend to restore them for good? I think that the CSD tag was left on them so they showed up in the speedy deletion categories as if they were intended to be deleted. I was looking over the Deletion log and deleted categories always catch my eye so thought I'd check in with you in case you wanted them permanently restored. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Golly, user:Fastily lives up to the name! I had to undelete one repeatedly – excuse me reverting your tag, it was the only way to remove it quickly enough for the page not to be instantly deleted again.
These are listed at WP:CFDW to be repopulated by JJMC89's bot. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, not sure how I missed that. Thanks for removing the tag. -FASTILY 00:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of moths of China has been accepted[edit]

List of moths of China, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the correct link[edit]

All your recent edits removing disease-related deaths categories have a redlink to the discussion where consensus was built. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word. I don't know how to remedy those past edits. Thank you for alerting me. – Fayenatic London 23:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I am sorry about that lot. I could do a mass rollback and then do the edits again. But not tonight. Do you think it would be worth it? – Fayenatic London 23:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. An experienced wikipedia editor can easily find the intended page, but one with less advanced skills perhaps not. (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Dummy edits to add an updated edit summary should work. Schazjmd (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or just redirect Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 31&oldid=1059830199 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 31 (although this is a complete non-issue that does not need any action in my opinion). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Pppery, that solution is so much easier and more efficient than mine! I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: beautiful, thanks! – Fayenatic London 16:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Late Late Show (American talk show) hosts has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:The Late Late Show (American talk show) hosts has been nominated for deletion. 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nobel laureates by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Nobel laureates by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1383 BC deaths[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1383 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1380s BC deaths[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1380s BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Thanks, you are the best :) ChanziP (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination[edit]

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Fayenatic london! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive26&oldid=1063121120"