User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive30

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 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G2 does not apply to the user namespace[edit]

You seem to have just deleted a bunch of userpages as "G2: Test page". However G2 explicity "does not apply to [...] pages in the user namespace" * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately the popup "Reason" menu does not mention that – I will ask if that exception can be stated there.
In any case I think those deletions would be valid under WP:U5. Do you think I would do well to undelete them and re-delete with an applicable criterion? – Fayenatic London 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that U5 does likely apply here, and personally don't really care whether they are undeleted and redeleted - that's up to you. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding lack of civility in WP:CFD. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I apologize if I interrupted you while you were fixing broken category redirects. That was not my intention so I stopped what I was doing to let you take care of the task you were working on. I didn't mean to step on your editorial shoes. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz – I was not aware of any interaction/interruption, so I guess it worked! – Fayenatic London 07:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors in China[edit]

You're correct, it was Lüda. Whoops. Tagged now. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:5th-century rulers in Asia has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:5th-century rulers in Asia has been nominated for merging. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD relists[edit]

Hi.

I understand that it's nice having additional closers (I know I find myself commenting more than closing these days).

But I just was noticing there is a newish editor, who seems to have found some new tools (and is asking for more [1]), and seems to be mass-closing CfDs as "Relist". I'm hoping it's just an enthusiastic editor looking to help out. But we've seen "interesting" things before, so just thought I'd put it on your radar.

I hope your day's going well : ) - jc37 22:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting[edit]

User:Notrealname1234 has relisted a large number of CfD discussions onto yesterday's log page, including discussions that could easily have been closed instead of relisted. Should (part of) these relistings be reverted? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest we ask them first whether they would mind, but they have already been reverted for similar relists at FFD (see User_talk:Notrealname1234/Archive_1#Non-admin_closure), so I think it would be OK to go ahead with reverting CFD relists too. I could use mass rollback on the category pages if that would help, if you would revert all the CFD log pages. – Fayenatic London 05:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do that this evening, right now I am running out of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. The raw material is here. – Fayenatic London 06:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be asleep by your evening time. Making a start... I've un-relisted June 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; July 3, 4, 8. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remaining contribs which you might reverse are here, for CFD July 5, 7, 9 & 10. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done - I noticed too late that you are on holidays, apologies for interrupting that, enjoy the remainder of your stay! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      im sorry, but im not really new, i created my account in 2021/2020 but started editing this year. Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      also, you might change the categories too. Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks – Done. – Fayenatic London 01:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T342344
@Writ Keeper: please consider adding a note about mass rollback, that after using it on a large number of edits, paging through one's own contribs may skip groups of them, as the reversions may be logged with indistinguishable time stamps. This confused me for some time when trying to check my own work; c. 140 edits in Category namespace timed at 00:45 today are not all shown when paging back in 50s or 100s. – Fayenatic London 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That...sounds like something to report to Phab. In the meantime, in case you haven't tried it already, they're all shown if you change the page size to 500--I imagine the bug is when an entire page of contribs has the same timestamp. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that the paging could only be fixed if the timestamp of edits is recorded more precisely than hundredths of a second. I may try raising it there after my holiday. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm already typing up the bug report! No worries there :) One question, though--viewing the last 500 of your contribs shows 137 edits at 00:45 July 20; do you think that's roughly the correct count of edits that you reverted with the script? Trying to get a baseline. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expected 139, but that's close enough. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: I noticed a similar problem after a mass update using XFDcloser. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's nothing unique to the MassRollback script; any edits that are sufficiently close together will exhibit the issue. Based on T200259, which the bug I opened got merged into, this has been known about since 2018, so I'm not optimistic for a quick fix... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I gave you both category barnstars already, but you really deserve a kudos for all that work - Nicely done : ) - jc37 00:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related nominations[edit]

Greetings. I was wondering if you have practice with tools to facilitate the nomination of subcategories of Category:Works by creator nationality (which I've just created) in the related nomination Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_17#Works_by_writer_nationality, please? fgnievinski (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: I would simply copy the six-line template on one of the nominated categories, and paste it into the others, editing the target name. To be fastidious one could change the startmonth, but don't worry about that.
For the record, I was surprised by your support for the possessive form, as jc37's alternative is in line with your original nomination in the earlier CFD. – Fayenatic London 04:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19th-century people from the Ottoman Empire[edit]

I don't understand your reversion of my edit. "from the Ottoman Empire" is clearly referring to the country, not to the nationality. The empire was multi-ethnic and included Arabs, Turks and Greeks etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me. I thought you had been contributing long enough to be aware of Wikipedia:Category_names#How_to_name_a_nationality by now. E.g.:
British = from the United Kingdom. Nationality categories use the demonym in this and most current cases.
Georgian = from Georgia (country). In this case nationality categories use from + the country name to avoid ambiguity with Georgia (US state).
Ottoman = from the Ottoman Empire. Since September 2022, nationality categories for empires etc generally use from + the compound name.
If I remember correctly, there is at least one editor who prefers the latter naming format for nationalities, but consensus remains for using demonyms in simple cases.
You also surprise me in not understanding that being from a country is generally an indicator of nationality. When people are category as being from a country, that's by nationality. It's only when people are categorised as being in a country that this is by country, and such categories only exist for occupations that include a lot of expatriates, e.g. bishops, diplomats and sportspeople. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it quite so clear-cut. As you say, we have people in Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire, not so much because they were expats (they probably spend all their lives as subjects of the Sultan), but because they were Greeks (i.e. not Ottomans). Many (most?) subjects of the Sultan were not ethnic Turks / Ottomans. They would never have self-described as such. That category is also parented to Category:Christian clergy from the Ottoman Empire. See how quickly someone is stitched from being in an empire to being of an empire? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a strong example, as it was renamed from a nationality category (Ottoman bishops) to an "in country" category per your nomination, and has not yet been re-parented as it should be. – Fayenatic London 02:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I received a notification from @Liz: that Category:15th-century European people by country was being nominated for deletion because it's empty. Is it empty because of what we have been discussing here? There may well be a case for deleting / renaming categories such as this, particularly when they are so dependent on the Roman Catholic subcategories, but this unilateral action is not the way to do it. If you have a larger scheme in mind, I think that it would be best to share it with the community at WP:CFD. Otherwise, this just looks like out-of-process emptying. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not leave any categories empty out of process. That one is now empty because of this edit by User:smasongarrison. There are no by-continent categories before Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Europe, but Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops contains the subcats by country and they are all in Europe (even Cyprus), so I thought it was fair to add that one there. You may want to create a C15 by-country subcat as you did at Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops by country. Incidentally, you did not get round to fixing the sort keys for that one. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A bit busy at the moment but will get to it later. Perhaps @Liz: might drop a note to smasongarrison. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not doing my research properly. As mentioned in the nom listed below, it's so difficult to see who does the actual de-populating. Anyway, sorry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem – your assumption was understandable. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, so I noticed that I got pinged into this conversation. So looking over my edit comment "not by country; removed Category:15th-century European people by country", I think my reasoning was that they weren't all "European people", by definition even if they were "in [European] countries. Mason (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your rationale applies equally to Category:16th-century European people by country etc, please consider taking the whole series to CFD for deletion. Pending this, may we repopulate C15? – Fayenatic London 11:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Laurel Lodged has taken them to CFD for renaming. – Fayenatic London 01:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By Year[edit]

Hi.

We seem to have disparate guidances spread out over several pages, and they are in various states of being up-to-date. So (besides just doing format and grammar adjustments), I've been trying to unify text.

I'm still looking at EGRS and OCEGRS. While I think OC should probably have a related section, I think OCEGRS should mostly just be only referring to the concept of overcategorization - while anything "policy-related", should reside at EGRS. Plus the OC listing is apparently getting out-of-date, as EGRS has apparently become more expanded. Maybe merging it all to EGRS would be better. Any help with this would be most welcome.

Also, I've unified guidance from several places into Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_year_or_time_period. Though it could use more CfD examples, if you happen to come across any. - jc37 15:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work at OCYEAR – it's nice and clear. I suggest mentioning sportspeople by period as they are mostly deprecated.
I saw the work re SMALLCAT and would like to contribute there later, but don't find it conducive to do so ATM on a mobile device. – Fayenatic London 04:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sportspeople situation, but that seems to also be being used for WP:OVERLAPCAT. I wouldn't mind moving those examples, if we can replace them. I wonder - do we have any non-year-related overlapcat examples? - jc37 02:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nm, I found some : ) - jc37 02:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I started to merge some of OCEGRS to EGRS, and looked to see what would remain, and realized that since this really isn't about "category clutter", it should probably all be at EGRS's list of Dos and Don'ts. That said, I was tempted to move Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Specific_intersections back to OC anyway, since the CfD links seem part of the explanation. But if we do that, we're taking it away from the "general conventions", which probably isn't a good idea, from a clarity perspective. Plus keeping everything together should (hopefully) mean that we avoid having guidelines in various states of being "current". Your thoughts are of course welcome : ) - jc37 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I saw you had a point - both because of past uses of that shortcut, and that these two sections should probably not be separate for clarity reasons. Thanks again : ) - jc37 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Works by" preferable to an eponymous category to collate a few subcats and articles for a musician? WP:EPON could helpfully add a steer on this. See current disagreement at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_28#Category:LeAnn_Rimes. – Fayenatic London 05:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without expressing my own opinion (partially because I don't have one yet lol - I'll go look at your link in a minute), but just as far as that policy sentence, I just copied that from OC to unify it. I think the idea behind that particular policy was that we want to categorize works by author, but if that's all that we have for it, is the creator's works + a main article, then we shouldn't just be creating a bunch of what are essentially nearly empty, eponymous container cats. If the choice is between to have a tree filled with an eponymous category for every article, or to have a "works by creator" for every creator, the idea was that the latter is preferable and we only create an eponymous one if it's needed. (And by the way, there are times that I'd like to trout whoever came up with the term "eponymous" for these, it's always such a jumble to type lol)
Anyway, that's my recollection of the theory behind it. If WP:CCC, then we can update. But I would be surprised if it has. - jc37 05:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what it looked like before unification: [2] (second sentence). Do you think it needs a clarifying sentence about not categorising works in the works by X category, and the parent eponymous cat? - 05:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Having looked at it...
Sooooo. This isn't so much about epon, as about smallcat (epon is essentially just an extension of smallcat if you think about it). There's been a debate about songs by artist and smallcat, quite literally since smallcat was implemented, and there's always been some type of an exception fought over. (I linked to it here.)
Your choice is to let everyone fight one way or other over it, and still have it called a localcon, and so this fight will continue on, or just let them keep both cats for now, and if interested in addressing it, start an RfC on works by artist and smallcat/eponcat.
If you look in Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musicians (and subcats), and Category:Wikipedia categories named after Canadian musical groups, you are likely to find a bunch more of these. - jc37 05:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisestcatCountryDecade/core[edit]

Hey, has there been any updates with Template:DisestcatCountryDecade/core? It's been over 5 months since the TfD. Gonnym (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: we discussed an updated version last year at Category talk:Pages using old version of Template DisestcatCountryDecade. Is this still something that interests you enough that you might finish it, please? – Fayenatic London 01:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does interest me, @Fayenatic london.
But right now, I am feeling utterly shredded and disillusioned by the antics of a small bunch of people who are furious that I insist that the words in a short simple guideline means what it say, rather than being wholly void beyond te first word of the headline. And because of that there is an almighty drama of out of context quotation etc going on to blacken my name again. So whether I stay around to do anything else of substance remains to be seen. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if I am still around, ask me again in a month or two when the dist has settled.
Right now, this place literally makes me puke, and it's not healthy for me to engage. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry BrownHairedGirl, I should have looked at how that was going before I pinged you on this minor matter.
FWIW, if you will accept this from an editor you should rightly consider as an ally: when I last took in what the complaint was about, it wasn't really about a guideline, but about your history of personalising disputes by calling other editors' competence and good faith into question, when you could instead have just written about the facts and merits of the case. Things would go so much better if you would recognise this habit and step out of it. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: the facts and merits of this case are that a bunch of editors have wholly misrepresented a simple guideline, and have persisted in doing so long after their error has been pointed out to them. That is inherently a competence and good faith question. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Just because you can see it doesn't mean you have to say it. That's a choice. When you choose to write out your views about other editors as well as your views on a policy issue, it generally does not strengthen your case. Instead, the main result is that everybody concerned gets upset, and what began as a discussion about a proposal becomes something deeply unedifying. AFAICS it's not just unnecessary – it's always counter-productive.
I'm still here because it's place where I can do useful stuff and where I'm still learning. I hope you will conclude likewise. – Fayenatic London 05:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, in this case a small group of editors has repeatedly insisted that black is white, on a very simple matter. That is a competence and good faith question which needs to be resolved.
In this case, some of that group have engaged in retaliation against me, vengefully trying to destroy my work. I have tons of evidence of this, and it would be helpful if you would withhold judgement until you have seen the evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this and subsequent sections below have been referenced at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. ArbComm members and @RevelationDirect:: I meant no disrespect by holding a related conversation here. I think it has petered out now anyway. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Swati tribe page[edit]

Dear admin I found your talk page from recent active admins and I wanna explain a issue regarding a propaganda on our tribe. I am leader of Swati tribe from Pakistan and We speak Pashto. Around 60-70% of our tribe Speaks Pashto and we strictly follow Pashtun Culture but there are some users which you can see in edit history of that page like Sutyarashi. They were trying to prove Swatis of Hindu races like Dardic. They are very much active on our tribe page and edit immediately whenever I or anyone made changes. I provided them a lot of reference but they said these references belongs to Colonial era i.e Written by British Government which are not acceptable on Wikipedia then I provided references from old books and then they said It should be publish by a good publishing company. Then I open their reference through which they were trying to change our origin and on the same page there was mentioned Swatis are maybe arabs which was totally opposite to their citation text. Then he agreed to me on his talk page and then I provided him the reference from the current research of Hazara University in which Swatis are mentioned as Tajiks and which is correct research according to Wikipedia rules and he accepted too this but still he didn't write tajik on page and again find some references in which some Dardic tribes were refered as Tajiks but Swatis are not mention in that reference. I checked. But Still they trying to impose that on page again and again and not writing Tajik Or Pashtun but Dardic without any reference Please I need help. I don't know much how to use Wikipedia but please save us from their propaganda. Khan Of Naral (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Of Naral/Gibari Sultan: you may not know much about how to use Wikipedia, but at least you now know that you are not allowed to use more than one account at the same time.
I will respond briefly at Talk:Swati tribe. – Fayenatic London 11:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personalising disputes[edit]

Hi FL

Further to your comment[3] above of 08:39, 27 July 2023 about your history of personalising disputes by calling other editors' competence and good faith into question, when you could instead have just written about the facts and merits of the case

See User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive29#Cfds (permalink) where you had a long exchange with Oculi, which began when Oculi asked [4] you to close as withdrawn two CFDs nominated by Oculi: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2 and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates A-G.

I have several WP:ADMINACCT questions for you:

  1. See my opposes to each of the CFDs in question: [5] and [6]. Is it your view that those !votes were personalising disputes?
  2. Since you object to personalising disputes, why did you not challenge Oculi's personalising of the dispute as 2 thoroughly BHG'ed nominations of mine?
  3. Since you object to personalising disputes, why did you not object to Oculi's vicious personal attack on me[7] at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_9#Expatriates_2?
    It was the last of only two responses to a nomination which you studied enough to opine on its merits, so it would have been hard to miss.
  4. You had been approached in your capacity as admin. So why did your reply[8] take a WP:INVOLVED stance, not only expressing support for the nominations, but suggesting two more categories which you believed could have been included?
  5. That same reply[9] correctly noted that these were SMALLCAT-based nominations. So why did you in your admin capacity express support for mass nominations which did not even mention WP:SMALLCAT, and which made no attempt whatsoever to address either the "potential for growth" or "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exemptions in WP:SMALLCAT?

You did indeed close both discussions as withdrawn, but in each case your close ([10] & [11]) made no mention of where the withdrawal requests had been made. That omission is a minor oversight, but it wasted a lot of my time in trying to track down why a pair of CFDs had been closed as withdrawn despite there being no such request in the CFD discussion. If a simple diff of the request has been included in the closure, I would have seen your discussion with Oculi much sooner. I finally found it while preparing my evidence for WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Your replies (or lack thereof) may form part of my evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I am intending to reply to this before doing other substantial work on Wikipedia, but will be out and about today. – Fayenatic London 03:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Fayenatic london. I have enjoyed our interactions over the years, and look fwd to your substantive response. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BrownHairedGirl:
Many times over the years, you and I have expressed strong appreciation and support for each other on Wikipedia, in something that looks like friendship bar the anonymity. I thought that this would be a strong enough basis of relationship to offer some personal advice to help you understand how you come across and why it is self-destructive. I didn't have anything to say that couldn't be said in front of others, hence my writing on-wiki rather than by email.
The whole business makes me sad, which is partly why I haven't kept up with the latest, but I am all the more sad that you appear to be taking my words as a betrayal.
Anyway, you have asked me some specifics and you deserve a reply, so here goes.
  1. Characterising someone as having a history of something does not mean that they do it all the time at every opportunity. So: No, I am happy to confirm that in your initial opposes on those two follow-up CFDs, you did not make any personal attacks.
  2. (making no comment on Oculi) You are of course not the only one at fault. Sometimes I'm at fault. I only bring up faults if I think some good will come of it.
  3. I interpreted that edit by Oculi as meaning that such interactions with you were tending to cause him to lose the will to live. Hence his early quitting on the follow-ups. If someone said that to me it would prompt me to self-examination rather than counter-attack.
  4. By mentioning limited support for the ex-nomination, I intended to express surprise at the early quitting, and sadness that Oculi could not face another instalment of the debate in the form it had taken. I saw no bad practice in my disclosing, after implementing the withdrawal, how I would have !voted if the discussion had run its course. As for the two categories, you did not check the context – those were not omissions from the nomination, but categories in the nomination which had not yet been de-tagged.
  5. It was a passing comment, not intended as a comprehensive analysis on "potential for growth". I could ask how on earth you interpret my referring to the recent CFD treating disestablishments differently from establishments as "no attempt whatsoever to address"... "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". (Note: I am not asking for a reply on that.)
Sorry to have wasted a lot of your time by not linking to the withdrawal request. Naturally I did not anticipate that it would be required in evidence. Of course, time zones allowing, you could simply have asked me. – Fayenatic London 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, thanks for taking the time for a considered reply. I too am sad about this.
However, I have to ask why you choose to make no comment on Oculi. If an editor wants to withdraw from a discussion, they can simply that they want to withdraw. Instead, Oculi chose to compare to me to the most extreme horror of the Christian tradition, and I am kinda horrified that you choose not to treat that as personal attack.
My opposes were, as you agree, not in any way personalised. So I am horrified that you intially overlooked the attack on me, and that even when challenged, you try to excuse the attack.
Yes, I do of course consider the substance of such complaints. In most cases, my conclusion is that the objectiosn are from editors who do not like to be challenged and do not like to debate their assertions. Per the lead of the UCoC, all participants in all spaces of Wikipedia are reuired to "Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work", and I do repeatedly challenge editors to strive for that. Treating that as "personalised" is a way to shut down debate, and to impedede those who follow the UCoC's requirement to "Strive towards accuracy and verifiability".
In both these nominations, Oculi had unambiguously misrepresented the guideline WP:SMALLCAT. It says very clearly that "this criterion does not preclude all small categories", and even its headline says "Small with no potential for growth". Oculi's nominations were based solely on the current size of the categories, and hence clearly invalid: they disregard everything except the initial word of a 112-word guideline. There is no way in which stripping 111 of 112 words can be defended as sny sort of reasonable interpretation or evpn as a plausible error.
I am also very disappointed that your reply to Oculi endorsed his misuse of SMALLCAT (For the record, I would certainly have supported deletion of the single-member categories.) I am even more disappointed that in your reply to me today, you don't even try to address my concerns about that, and instead shrugged it off as a passing comment, just as you dismissed my concerns about Oculi's personal attack on me.
There is a further issue which I realised yesterday needs to be addressed. You closed[12] WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G as withdrawn by nominator, and you also closed[13] WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2 with the same rationale. Yes, the nominator has requested withdrawal in each case. But per WP:CSK 1.3 "Where the nominator withdraws their nomination, check whether other editors still recommend a delete or redirect outcome before speedily closing. If a good faith editor in good standing recommends delete or redirect, the AfD should not be speedily closed using this ground."
That 1.3 exception applies here, because both nominations still had at least one editor recommending merge or delete. Unless you took the view that none of those !votes were from a good faith editor in good standing, then the nominations should not have been closed as withdrawn. I am sure that this was a good faith oversight on your part, but please can you remedy it?
Similarly, yesterday Oculi himself closed WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Irish_astrophysicists as withdrawn by nominator, contrary to WP:CSK 1.3. Please can you also sort that out, or direct me to a suitable venue to raise it.
Thanks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_11#Irish_trade_unionists as well. (In the one yesterday you asked for a 'speedy close', which I provided.) In the interests of accuracy, WP:CSK relates to articles, not categories: "This is a deletion guideline on entire articles". AfD in your quote above gives a clue. The string 'categor' appears twice on the page, at the bottom and in the margin. WP:BEFORE likewise applies only to articles; the section heading "Nominating article(s) for deletion" again gives a hint of this, as does the page heading "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Oculi (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I have nothing more to add to what has already been stated by other editors. Oculi withdrew those nominations because of an earlier similar CFD where the discussion had gone badly, so the innocence of your initial Opposes in these follow-up CFDs was not the point. RevelationDirect assembled at AN/I a list of examples of the conduct in question.
I did not mean to "dismiss [your] concerns", which were not my business to adjudicate on, and which you have presumably raised elsewhere. I only meant to give reasonable answers to your first set of questions. Any further delving into what I intended and how you interpreted it is likely to wear us both out.
You seem to now be objecting to a speedy keep being implemented at your own request. If you really want that discussion reopened after all, please ask an admin who is not on holiday. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pity. I don't want any of those discussions to resume; I just want them to be closed properly.
It's standard part of procedure in any type of meeting that a motion which has non-zero support becomes the property of the meeting, not of the proposer, and cannot unilaterally be withdrawn. WP:CSK 1.3 reflects that long-standing principle, as seen e.g. in 1876 in the 1st edition of the widely-used Robert's Rules of Order at Rule 62(b) https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9097/pg9097-images.html#sec62b
As to WP:BEFORE, it appears to be Oculi's position that a CFD nominator is under no obligation whatsoever to make any attempt at all to verify the assertions in their nomination. That would be a recipe for chaos, allowing nominators to make any claim they like without regard to the facts, as has happened repeatedly in WP:SMALLCAT nominations. That position contradicts the UCoC, which requires that "all who participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces will": (3rd bullet point) "Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say[edit]

Fayenatic london - I don't know what to say. I'm only merely one Wikipedian, so I won't presume to speak for the community, but I just want to apologize to you for the above.

I read that and it was so shocking to me, I was at a loss for words.

In my experience, even if you were to say you two weren't friends, you and BHG have been friendly for as long as I can remember.

I read your comments above, similar to how I read Valereee's and others' - as an intervention to a friend who really seems like they are on a path of self-destruction.

I said an AN/I that I didn't think this would go anywhere. I guess I was wrong. You apparently saw where this is going more clearly than I was.

There was a time when I was friendly with BHG, and enjoyed interacting and collaborating with her. Until I was repeatedly pushed away and attacked til I just couldn't bring myself to want to step into that firefight anymore. And now seeing that start to happen to someone else...

Anyway, I have no doubt that BHG feels like the world is against them right now, and if only she shows these and other diffs she'll be exhonerated and the world will be a better place again. I honestly think she doesn't see that that that is going to make little difference anymore.

Even if everything she shows is correct and the editors were being awful. They (like her, several times in the past) are likely to get advised or admonished. Maybe a interaction or topic ban handed out for anything above and beyond.

But I think nearly everyone is seeing that BHG is likely facing "This user has exhaused the community's patience". That's a site ban.

I don't want to see that.

For all of the attacks, the ad hominem, and everything else, BHG does do good here. When not in battleground stance, she answers questions, she helps out others, and so on. I still side on the side of the line that the Wiki can be a better place with her here than without her here.

But the tone of the above. I don't know. If she can't find a way to address how she comes across. To address her ad hominem tactics. I don't know what will happen. I've watched arbcom a very long time. And every Arb is different, but even the ones who are the most generous and offer the most oportunities for change... I just don't know.

Anyway, after seeing the above, I just wanted to reach out and say that regardless of anything else, you too are valued. Very much so. And I am sorry to see this happen.

I sincerely wish you well. - jc37 16:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only ad hominen in any of my post above to FL is Oculi's vicious personal attack on me.[14]
But your post is almost entirely ad hominem. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm choosing to go against a past personal choice here. Because I really do think you have value too. And though I doubt you will hear this as it is intended, I still think, ethically, I should try...
ad hominen - "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
I think this is what you are missing here. "This" is what others are saying that you are doing, and is a big part of why AN/I and arbcom are happening.
And so now, you have become the topic under discussion. Your actions.
It isn't about smallcat. It isn't about categories, CFD, or any other content.
It is about how you interact with editors who disagree with you, when you think there's a chance you might "lose" in an argument, any argument.
That you cannot see how you just attacked Fayenatic above, would seem to be symptomatic of this.
Lashing out at Fayenatic, attacking them (seemingly just so that you can lash out at someone), because you seem to feel that you've been wronged in all of this.
Feelings are real. Feeling may not always be logical. I think everyone understands that.
But what you just did above was wrong. It was an exemplary case of where you have gone too far.
In the past, you usually skirt the line on these and dial it back. With only a few exceptions, you usually haven't been as blatant as you have recently. Though most people just back down from your onslaughts so it doesn't get to this level.
This time, you're facing people who also seem confident in their positions, and so they didn't back down either. And this has escalated to a level that others can now see what you do more clearly. And now it's at arbcom.
And everyone's been begging you: Please let it go. If Wiki-pages help, besides WP:BATTLEGROUND, it's WP:STICK and WP:SPIDER.
Maybe this will get through. Fighting this battle the way you are right now, will lose you the war to where you won't be fighting any new battles.
I hope you can hear this as it's intended. The goal here is to still have you at Wikipedia as a collegiate, contributing editor.
Whatever the case, whether you believe it or not, I wish you well. - jc37 07:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attack Fayenatic. I asked Fayenatic a few questions about how they had performed an admin role.
Or, to use your definition I did not "employ a rhetorical strategy where I attacked the character, motive, or some other attribute of Fayenatic" I made no comment or question about Fayenatic's "character, motive, or some other attribute": I asked why they had done or not done some things.
It's very unpleasant that you choose to misrepresent me in this way. It reminds me why I was pleased to disengage from you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You constantly tell people how disappointed you are in them. You never just say “I disagree with you”, instead you personalise it and make it about their character. I’m editing from an IP because I am one of the dozens of editors you have attacked over the last decade. You’ll never step back and look at your own behaviour, but for the record the ones you are attacking are your allies and they think highly of you. Or at least I assume they do. If you won’t listen to friends and allies, then you are doomed to repeat the same behaviour. - 49.195.111.97 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move page back to the original title[edit]

some vandal messed up a page, can you move MediaWiki talk:SrttX back to Sonic X? I tried asking a user but he put that he will go on a vacation. Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs). – Fayenatic London 20:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century people in Europe by country[edit]

This nom closed as "rename". There are now two entries in this category - bishops and monarchs. However, the bishops one is "by country"; not all countries were in Europe. This means that the bishops by country should not be parented here but individual countries that are in Europe ought to be parented here. Do you agree? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged, please provide links when leaving talk page messages. For my reference, this was about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_3#European_people_by_country.
WP:SUBCAT currently says "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." 16 out of 17 sub-cats of C13 bishops were in Europe; IMHO, that's good enough for the present sub-catting under Europe. I do not support your suggestion, and suggest you reverse it where you have implemented it in Category:17th-century people in Europe by country, [15] especially as you had already made Category:17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Europe which you removed despite it fitting there perfectly. Nor would I support the alternative of creating a separate C13 sub-cat for Europe. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're happy for Category:13th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be parented to Europe? I'd find that hard to swallow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually parented, but great-grandparented to Europe – yes. But if you prefer to create a near-identical Europe category for the purpose, I won't challenge it. – Fayenatic London 18:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Marcocapelle would take the same approach as me, as he put Category:14th-century bishops by country within Europe [16] despite its including one bishop in India. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: a more elaborated answer: in a situation like this you need to make a trade-off between a non-ideal parenting structure (like I did) or adding articles to two almost entirely overlapping categories. Both these outcomes are not ideal. The outcome of the trade-off should in my view be at least dependent on how sensitive the topic is (the more sensitive, the less likely the first outcome) and how large the overlap would be (the larger the overlap, the more likely the first outcome), so it should be determined on a case-to-case basis. We have a very similar discussion about Arab ethnicity where I am far more reluctant to do the same thing as I have done here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empty tomb[edit]

Your input in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_11#Category:Empty_tomb would be highly appreciated, regardless whether you agree with the nomination or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcat[edit]

Welcome back from vacation! With respect to your latest CfD nomination, you may notice that I am using a lot of words to support it. In fact I am trying to avoid referring to WP:SMALLCAT since the Arbcom case by the same name. Just "merge per nom" would not have adequately done that. This is just for information, there is no need to react. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to comment on discussions on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. These discussions are not suspended during the Arbcom case, I specifically asked for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Hi. I made that change for good faith. Unfortunately the bot is reverted it. Gadir (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadir: Re Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_13#Category:Crimes_against_men, are you going to suggest articles/sub-categories that should be included, in order to show that re-creation might be justified? So far all you have done is fiddle about with the presentation on the page. It looks as if you are wasting your time, and wasting other people's time too. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not doing anything like that. I will point it out, dont worry. But I was talking about the other technical change. No problem, thanks. Gadir (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to contribute as much as I can. Gadir (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Office-holders by country has been nominated for splitting[edit]

Category:Office-holders by country has been nominated for splitting. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:18th-century Polish artists[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century Polish artists 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: that plainly deserved to be reverted to a redirect rather than deleted. Anyway, thanks for the ping, which prompted me to add more navigation links at the target and surrounding categories. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christianity in the Arab world has been nominated for splitting[edit]

Category:Christianity in the Arab world has been nominated for splitting. 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reversion of valid info / User hostility[edit]

Hello Fayenatic London. I am new to Wikipedia, so I hope this is the correct place to message you. If not, I apologize. I have a concern that I would like to bring to the attention of an admin. On the article for "James Tour", I attempted to add relevant information to Tour's personal background, as well as adjust some language that did not seem to come from a neutral POV. In response, I was met with repeated, and I believe to be unwarranted, reversions of my work, as well as hostile messages from a certain user, Hobs Gadling. I would like to make it clear that I truly am not trying to cause trouble, nor impose a certain viewpoint. I can also understand how part of my revision (on pseudoscience vs theory) could be up for debate, and I am more than willing to reverse this change. However, most of what was added is not contested nor controversial in any way, and I included the necessary citations to support these points. Hobs contacted an admin himself, who claims that my work is not reliably sourced, though I find this to be untrue, as I have stated in the talk page of said article. Hobs accuses me of starting an edit war (which is not my intention), though he is the one reverting my contributions with no attempt on his behalf to reach a compromise. Hobs has told me to read WP:BRD, but it is my understanding that it is not necessarily required to follow BRD when editing a page, and I have tried my best to address his concerns. However, I should be able to add accurate info to a page without one user's approval. Wikipedia is an open platform, is it not? I explained my reasoning (which included references) on the talk page of James Tour, to which Hobs replied with "I do not care" to valid and reliably sourced biographical info, as well as misrepresenting my intentions. I believe his actions to be in violation of WP:AGF, WP:DE, WP:POINT, and WP:WQ. I understand how controversial James Tour might be, but his Wikipedia page should be just as accurate, thorough, and neutral as any other public figure. I have done my best to remain civil and resolve this issue myself, but it seems the best option is to reach out for help. All that being said, I would like to know your opinion of the situation. I have attached diffs to this message, please refer to them and let me know your thoughts. Also, please read my addition to the talk page of James Tour, as I have outlined my reasoning more clearly there. Do let me know if I am in the wrong here. I would like my edits to be restored, but I will respect whatever decision you make. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171624270

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171692925

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171693085

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171696858

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171697209

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171706974

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Tour&diff=prev&oldid=1171709178 Roobad (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roobad, I hope it's not too odd to reply to you here. I was going to leave a message on your talk page regarding the situation you described above, and so when I saw you describe it here, I thought it would make more sense to reply here.
Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy does not afford equal space to differing viewpoints. The name of the policy may be somewhat confusing as people often misinterpret it. When it comes to a topic like abiogenesis, from Wikipedia's perspective the "neutral point of view" is the scientific consensus. It would not be an attempt to balance the scientific consensus against other viewpoints.
Also, the article that you are editing is subject to Wikipedia's "fringe" policies outlined on WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Both of these impose stricter requirements for sourcing and the type of statements the article can make.
Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chugh[edit]

Notice

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

Entirely Unsourced related to South Asian and Indian communities without any citations.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020–21 FIA World Endurance Championship season[edit]

This issue I think is now finally resolved! At least in the sandbox & Template:Navseasoncats/testcases13. Removing the category redirect should now free up a spot on the nav. I haven't made the fix live yet, since I'd like to see how the sandbox reacts to the absense of the #R (but it should be fine). In case there is more debugging to be done, I'd rather not make multiple changes to live. Could you delete the #R if you think that's fine?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: Thanks and well done! I have deleted it, and confirm that Template:Navseasoncats/sandbox now handles better the exceptions noted at User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive28#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:2020–21_FIA_World_Endurance_Championship_season. Please go ahead and make the sandbox live. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old IP indef[edit]

Hi, Fayenatic. I was looking through old IP indefs and noticed Special:Contributions/108.176.58.170. Does that IP still need to be blocked? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Kemsley and his associates have stopped removing cited information about his bankruptcy, so it's probably OK to unblock that address now. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

apology[edit]

I do hope I havent made life difficult for you... I never really got a handle on the idea that 'ships' was the name of the project that has dominated - why a more grown up outside of the kindergarten idea of maritime history, never eventuated is a blot on the forever changing weird technicolour range of slippages between ports, and all the other weirdnesses that have evolved, but then the university where I studied anthropology has recently destroyed the department, I suppose there are some very strange ideas about how knowledge is organised in the world,JarrahTree 13:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Categorisation Barnstar
Thank you for all of your work in CfD. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Category names[edit]

So I was looking at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_1#X_by_Y_in_Z.

And it made me think about Wikipedia:Category_names#Categories_by_country.

And I was wondering if, based upon your experiences at CSD and CFD, this whole set of sections might need to be looked at. (Over the years, I think we're seeing some clarity renames happen concerning in and from, for example.) - jc37 08:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Marcelus (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkic slaves has been nominated for splitting[edit]

Category:Turkic slaves has been nominated for splitting. 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. Mason (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert[edit]

Thanks for this revert! After a couple thousand of those edits, my eyes were going crossed and I made a dumb error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, of course! It was completely understandable, and mildly amusung.
Probably too much to ask to look through your contribs for other edits to music group WikiProject pages. I only found that one because that project page transcluded the Alerts page which still had a link to the old members category. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I caught a few errors that I made and reverted them myself. I'm going to trust that our daily reports will turn up links to, and members of, red-linked categories, which there will no doubt be plenty of after 1,000+ category moves. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a report of red links to categories? – Fayenatic London 22:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links? I see that it hasn't run in a year, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm and MZMcBride: any chance of resurrecting that report, please? I would find it useful. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Navseasonscats" is no more[edit]

In closing that requested move, I noticed your comment about tracking categories. Would you happen to have an easy way of getting all of those that will need to be renamed? I'm not too familiar with which tracking categories are used here, so don't want to miss any. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Elli: A search finds 33 categories with that word in the name: Category:Navseasoncats cleanup and its 32 subcats. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elli: I'll work on it; thanks for the close.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  08:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom.Reding: Gonnym has listed 15 at the Speedy page. IMHO the whole set could be processed without waiting under WP:G6 (housekeeping). – Fayenatic London 08:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree. Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom.Reding: do you need to keep the redirects at the old names [17] for a while, or can they be deleted now? – Fayenatic London 10:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer to keep the old category #Rs which are involved in archived discussions, like for when there were a few options for a new category's name, and it's clear from the 1 blue link which was chosen.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the testcases page still has four instances of a parameter |navseasoncats within tests for forced errors which you inserted here. Are these still wanted? – – Fayenatic London 11:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope! I'll take of them now.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Already  Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The navseasoncats parameters are still there, Tom. – Fayenatic London 17:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ooh, I see what you mean. The navseasoncats in
{{#invoke:Category series navigation|navseasoncats}}
is the name of the main function inside Module:Category series navigation:
function p.navseasoncats( frame )
I could rename it to, perhaps p.csn when I get more time (or someone else can if they want before then). It needs to be changed in the testcases and at Template:Category series navigation. Hmmm, and probably nowhere else?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a fun coincidence, nsc backwards is csn :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, nsc occurs in transclusion and Navseasonscats … a name which was only found in one place until this section! – Fayenatic London 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Interlingua organizations[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Interlingua organizations 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed[edit]

Is this edit good or bad? 121.98.204.148 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid edit. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American country rock singers navigational boxes[edit]

What is the reason that you are proposing renaming Category:American country rock singers navigational boxes to Category:American rock musician navigational boxes, a title that excludes BOTH "country" and "singer"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 – thank you – my mistake, copy/paste error; I have corrected this. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Which edit summary are you referring to? I'm not seeing one where March is in the edit summary.

If I mispasted an date somewhere, I'd like to go look to make sure it's the only oops : ) - jc37 22:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Category pages were not moved in those days, so it's not in the edit history. It's only in the deletion log for Category:American colonial women from the move by the bot, following your instruction to the bot. I have corrected my note on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thank you.
As you showed in your link, I put the task under the January date. No idea why cydebot linked to March. I guess it could have been me somewhere, or could have been the bot setting (which went awry at times). Dunno. Weird though. - jc37 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Monks by ethnicity[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Monks by ethnicity 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swatis Tribe[edit]

Hi

Seems like this page has become warring ground between wanna be Pashtuns like Haider Khan and funds seeking NGO guys and their minions. Swatis aren't Pashtuns or Dards. If we keep removing the lines for political and financial motives Wikipedia would just end up misleading. Swatis have glorious past and still are powerful so every group want to claim them but the fact their language was Gabari already defined https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian_Dari_language at Wikipedia and the definition to Dehgan or Dehqan as given at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehqan page. Secondly, Afghans never lived in cities and were considered to be villagers and semi nomadic till recent past themselves so they were called village dwellers by Dehgans and not vice versa. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at User_talk:Azmarai76#Neutral_point_of_view. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for removing links to the Genetic Studies conducted in the recent past. Those given to clarify what is difference between Swatis Dards and Afghans.
Azmarai76 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the editor who did it? I think they simply reverted to the best edit, which was the one before yours, since you had removed so many apparently valid citations. Go ahead and add material without removing other valid material.
Please use the "Show preview" button to check your formatting before you save your edits. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Can you please look into the matter of disruptive editing by Azmarai76 at Swati tribe and Sultanate of Swat? They are not citing any source in the support of their claims even after being requested multiple times and just have been adding irrelevant WP policies in the article, or tagging references as self-published even though not, by claiming that they "got printed by Pashtun fascists."[18] They do not seem to give any regard to WP policy regarding referencing. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will really appreciate if you could check this. That is borderline vandalism. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this for review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Sutyarashi-20231130173900-User:Azmarai76, as I don't have time for it ATM. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I was wondering what your opinion was of subcategories included in Category:American Jews by state or territory. They seem redundant (like English Jews in London or French Jews in Paris) and they are newly created which makes me wonder what categories were that we used before they existed. And if there were none, did the previous ones get deleted under the same or slightly different category page titles? I thought maybe you'd know more since you spend a fair amount of time in CFD discussions. Thanks for any opinion you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like before, say, Category:American Jews from California was created, we included all of these articles in Category:Jews and Judaism in California. So I guess they didn't fully replace any preexisting categories. They still seem a bit redundant like "Argentine football players from Argentina". But I should have done more homework before posting here. I'll leave this message though in case you have any thoughts about this. Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems appropriate to have made the splits to the new categories, because of WP:COP. I agree that if the subcats should exist then "Jews from California" would be the appropriate naming format. @Omnis Scientia: would you agree to this? if so we could use a bot to rename them speedily under WP:C2E, without bothering to tag and list them. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed agree with this! In fact, I was having this discussion with @Mason about it yesterday (here). I should also explain that these most of these categories were made by another user and were already titled "American Jews from *state name*", but they left them mostly empty. I created a few more in the same style as the previous user before I realized a while ago it should be "Jews from *state name*", as is the case in Category:American Christians by state.
And to answer @Liz; Jewish Americans were not categorized by state before this, as far as I can tell. The "Jews and Judaism" state categories mostly contain historically Jewish newspapers and buildings, or important/notable events in Jewish American history and so on but contained only a handful of people across them; Jewish politicians and rabbis had subcategories by state but even there it wasn't ALL states. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I checked thoroughly before I decided to populate the categories in Category:American Jews by state or territory. There wasn't any such categorization for Jewish Americans as there was in Category:American Christians by state. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the other user, I noted that they have been blocked for socking, so I didn't worry about them. The categories are now listed for processing.[19] – Fayenatic London 18:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You saved me a lot of work! Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome :) Mason (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion[edit]

Good morning. Regarding Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_30#Category:Massacres_committed_by_anarchists and my latest comment there, is there a need for an administrator to intervene? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the new category, linking to the extant CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents[edit]

A category or categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in the Province of Massachusetts Bay[edit]

Please take a look at Category:Decades in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. An editor has decided to make this a redirect without taking the category to CfD. Gonnym (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you take a look at the page history, you'll see that I created it as a redirect… it was you who decided to split the contents to a sub-hierarchy for the Province.[20] Anyway, I have no objection to there now being a discussion on the usefulness of that hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 18:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference when an edit isn't contested over an edit that is contested and which breaks the entire tree. Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § Province of Massachusetts Bay[edit]

A category or categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § Province of Massachusetts Bay on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § Works by setting[edit]

A category or categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § Works by setting on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Education fraud in the United Kingdom[edit]

I would like to request that the discussion on this be re-opened as it was not advertised on the pages affected and your nomination was factually incorrect. Higher Education Degree Datacheck, at least, is not an accreditation body but a body set up specifically to tackle education fraud. The discussion, such as it was, thus took place under the false impression that this was a single-page category and without input from the editors who would have been able to correct this misapprehension. Robminchin (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With only two justifiable pages in the category, it's still not useful for navigation, so it would be normal only to make sure that the two articles were linked to each other, and upmerge them to all the parent categories. I did notify the page creator, and the nomination is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Education/Article alerts. But it was user:Qwerfjkl who closed the discussion, so let's ask them. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. What I want to ensure is that the article on HEDD isn't lost from the education fraud category tree, as that's the reason the organisation exists, so up-merging it along with the bogus colleges page would be fine by me. Robminchin (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robminchin, if that's the problem you could simply add it to the appropriate categories. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § X in fiction XIII[edit]

A category or categories you have created have 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § X in fiction XIII on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hide revisions[edit]

Hello. Could you please hide this revision (and the next edit as well) because it's offensive (very bad) words in Arabic? Thanks in advance. --Karim talk to me :)..! 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karim  Done – Fayenatic London 21:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Karim talk to me :)..! 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a wonderful Christmas friend :)[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Fayenatic london, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
Jerium (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Jerium (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers![edit]

Hello Fayenatic london: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Qwerfjkltalk 22:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

— Qwerfjkltalk 22:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive30&oldid=1192983805"