User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 12

James C. King

Hi.
On May 12, 2014; you deleted James C. King. The log says "G8: Redirect to a nonexistent page". But I quite didnt understand the reasoning. I am currently working on the article for King. It would be appreciated a lot if you could tell me in plain English why the page was deleted. Thanks, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It was four years ago, so I don't remember it at all, but I imagine I selected the wrong reason by mistake. However, there was never an article at James C. King. It was only a redirect to the James King disambiguation page. So I probably deleted it as being pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am very glad to see you have gained back the access to your account. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about MOS:JOBTITLES

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard Durning Holt

Hi, I'm confused with your move of Richard Durning Holt. Sir Richard Holt, 1st Baronet is most certainly not his common name. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Sir Richard Holt was his common name. He is most commonly referred to as Sir Richard Holt in sources; far more commonly than by his full name. But as there is more than one Richard Holt we disambiguate using his title, as per usual (WP:BARONET). It is not usual to disambiguate using middle names that were not commonly used (WP:MIDDLENAME). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'm surprised. I can understand that the Durning bit may be less common but the last time I looked his title wasn't actually used that much and the Durning bit was used far more. (I'm not related to the family at all but it is well-known and referred to in the area.) Regardless, I'll live with it - just more WP specious bollocks, really, and I'm fed up of it, as with categories and dabs. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

His obits and other references in The Times certainly refer to him as Sir Richard Holt. But if you really think his middle name was commonly used in reality then I'm happy to move it back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested Move

Hi,

I noticed you commented on a requested page move for Management information system. I'm working on a school project to research and contribute to a page so I'm not very well versed with editing Wikipedia articles. I agree because that Management information systems should not be capitalized due to the sentence case that is normally used, but the change was referring to the plural nature of the title. There is a "Management Information Systems" in that case which is why I referred to it as such. Ideally, the title of the article should be "Management information systems". The talk section around that move included one addition criticizing my experience, my response, followed by your comment about the letter case of the new title. Can you help me understand what I need to do to get this page moved correctly? Lucasf926 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mo Legend69 molegend619 12:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Legend69 (talk • contribs)

Deletion discussion about Chris S. Sims

I noticed that you are a frequent contributor in deletion request discussions about D&D topics. There is an ongoing discussion about the notability/deletion of D&D designer Chris S. Sims (game designer). I wanted to ask for your expertise/participation. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher O'Neill‎

Hi I am astonished that as an administrator you would leave this kind of ad hom comment; [1]. You made a serious mistake when claiming that I must have a republican agenda as I am anything but, as I said I am a royalist but I do not believe that simply marrying into a royal family is a guarantee to notability. there is a very strong probability that there will be sufficient coverage to guarantee notability but as per WP:INVALIDBIO we cannot assume that they are notable. You may not have noticed but I also !voted keep. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also if you check out my user page and you will see that we share a common background in some aspects. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And just in case there is any doubt in your mind about my loyalties if you look hard enough you will find a photo of me on wikipedia that should seal it! Anyway I won't labour the point any more suffice it to say that being accused of being a republican ruffled my feathers! ;o) cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please reread what I actually wrote. I certainly didn't accuse you of having a republican agenda. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mo Legend69 molegend619 09:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Legend69 (talk • contribs)

Geoffrey Dear, Baron Dear

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed Kt from Lord Dear’s post-nominal on the infobox? My understanding is that a Knight bachelor when ennobled was entitled to use Kt to show that rank. I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, iComputerSaysNo 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Only in very formal documents when honours are spelled out in full instead of being abbreviated (and then as "Knight"). It is certainly not common practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

hohum

Have had a conversation at the Indonesian noticeboard - in most cases ten year old stubs with long standing tags with no sources or refs added in that time - just a little frustrated with the cast mass of stubs in the Indonesian project - that even if they are notable, there is no one editing to prove that JarrahTree 15:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

in fact there have been conversations in the last ten years that villages with no notability or references easy to hand other than the central statistics office - should be deleted and move up to the next level of administration - districts or whatever. However the editors who have been involved have long stopped editing from what I can tell JarrahTree 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a longstanding practice that we consider settlements to be notable, no matter where they are or whether or not they're stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

maybe - but then that is probably practice but when the random nature of adding every damned village in indonesia, I am sure that a project level consensus would say stuff that. JarrahTree 15:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And would be ignored because it's only a project! This is a Wikipedia-wide practice. Projects have no official standing. We have articles, many of them stubs, on villages in every country in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

no further comment on this from me - have a nice whatever JarrahTree 16:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

53rd Anti-Aircraft Brigade

Is it a disambiguation? It should be rewritten.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Torrens Parade Ground

I see you added Torrens Parade Ground to Category:Art Deco architecture in Australia and wondered why. Yes, the building has "Art Deco decorative elements", but it also has "simplified classical motifs", and no-one is saying it is of simplified classical architecture. Please explain why you feel it is of Art Deco architecture. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The building appears to be clearly Art Deco in style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Really? You surprise me. There are many Art Deco buildings around Adelaide and it doesn't look even vaguely like any of them. If you can find a source that supports your point of view I'll go away and stop bothering you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove it if you want. I really can't be bothered to debate the issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• User talk:Pdfpdf. It's a a very deco design. shallow vertical pilaster, typical art deco window and under-window design, perfectly symmetrical, not literalist classical elements. And there are excellent sources to support this. However, I do want to say that this is NOT the appropriate place for this discussion; you ought to have taken this to the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Wow! you figured out a truly apt name for that page. (while the rest of us just spun our wheels) E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving a page discussion

Could you see a page move discussion relating to WP:NCPEER at Talk:Iain McNicol? --Editor FIN (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring discussion re. User:FF-UK

Hello Necrothesp, I thought you would be interested to know that I have reported User:FF-UK for edit-warring on Mains electricity by country (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FF-UK reported by User:CplDHicks2 (Result: )), but really this is encompassing all of his past behaviour. I noticed he was his charming self in a discussion at Talk:Amazon (company)/Archive 2#Survey about 10 months ago. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks. CplDHicks2 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Amesbury School

This article is a blatant advert for a non notable, fee-paying primary school. Only only one of the building - which is now hardly ever used - as you corerectly pointed out, is notable as a listed building. This does not mean 'the school' is notable. As sympathetic as I am to school articles, we don't tolerate advertising. Stub it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I see little advertising on that page. It needs a bit of a rewrite, as do 90% of school articles, but it's definitely not an advert. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Rv your move

[2], because RM at talk superceeds individual choices. I'd have preferred Mürwik Naval Academy myself, TBH. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-examining it, I would actually agree with you, although Mürwik Naval School would actually be a better translation. I didn't notice the RM, but given nobody actually contributed to the discussion the move shouldn't really have been made at all! This "Foo at Foo" stuff is very counterintuitive and weird-looking in English and shouldn't be used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson's OBE and smallcaps

At Gillian Anderson, you set the size of the post-nominals back to 100%. My understanding of MOS:SMALLCAPS and MOS:POSTNOM is that they should be in small caps. No? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No. This is merely a preference expressed by the creator of the template, which they will not accept is not standard practice. Unfortunately, because the template is widely used "as is" this has become a normal look. However, generally in "real life" postnoms are seen at the same font size as the preceding name. There is nothing in any Wikipedia guideline that requires them to be at 85%. Or rather, there shouldn't be. The clauses at MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:SMALLCAPS were added by an editor without discussion or consensus. Thank you for alerting me to them. I have removed them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like something that should be removed from the MOS boldly, especially when a template has been displaying it that way for a long time. If you think it's not an issue, why not also change the template to default to 100% also? I'm sure that will provoke a discussion among those who care —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability policy

I appreciate the section on your userpage re notability. My experience is similar, and more troubling is that I know many new editors have been discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia as a result. I tend to think that long term, based on this and editor statistics, Wikipedia is doomed due to "the bureaucrats... taking over". But since the contents are free, they will live on in whatever it is that eventually comes to replace it. See the spiel on my userpage for more. ··gracefool 💬 09:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OberRanks de-proddings

Hi Necrothesp, I noticed that you de-prodded three articles created by now-banned User:OberRanks (Bolko von Schweinichen, Gau badge, and SS Personnel Main Office). that had been prodded in the course of the large, community-driven cleanup program started after his ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#OberRanks and fabricated sources for background). I have to say that I find de-prodding such articles without then taking responsibility for them and cleaning them up highly unhelpful. All material added by OberRanks, including material that may look well-written and plausibly sourced on the surface, has to be presumed falsified unless proven otherwise. It's fine to save such articles from deletion if you are prepared to put in the legwork of re-writing and re-sourcing them. But simply removing the prod and letting the falsified contents sit there unchanged is really not acceptable. And please don't go telling me now that the rules of the Prod process allow you to do that – I know that perfectly well. What I'm asking you to do here is not just to act within the letter of the law, but to act responsibly. Which, unfortunately in these cases you didn't.

In the case of Bolko von Schweinichen, I have now stubbed the article back to the one sentence that I found was reliably sourcable. This will probably all still have to go to AfD, as there clearly is no sufficient biographical coverage establishing notability (all I found was three or four sources that just barely confirmed his existence, in one sentce each). And I have to say I very much resent you forcing me to waste my time doing this – we have hundreds of OberRanks articles to clean up, and it's never going to happen if the few of us who are currently willing to wade through this ugly mess are forced to spend this amount of time on each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the obsession with prodding umpteen articles on the Nazis to be disruptive and not at all helpful to Wikipedia. Yes, some are cruft. But some, like these, are not, whoever may have created them. Discretion is required in prodding, and in these instances I do not believe it has been used (I was particularly gobsmacked that such a significant institution as the SS Personnel Main Office was prodded). Comments by some members of the little coterie who are involved in doing this would almost suggest a desire to eliminate any mention of the Third Reich from Wikipedia as much as possible and glee in such deletion, which does a disservice to an encyclopaedia and is not in the spirit of the project. I'm afraid I would have to say that if you resent the work caused by my deprodding then maybe you should examine the articles more closely before they are prodded. I could also say that I resent the waste of my time constantly having to go through the prod categories (which I regularly do) due to irresponsible prodding. If I remove a prod I only do so because I genuinely believed it has been misapplied. Prodding is not for cleanup. It is not for cases of IDONTLIKEIT. It is for uncontroversial deletion of cruft and blatantly non-notable articles. Here I believe it has been misused. I also have to say that I find the suggestion that I acted irresponsibly insulting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are quite seriously misreading the situation. This is not about eliminating articles about Nazi Germany. It's about eliminating articles written by one particular fabricator, and given the nature and amount of his falsifications, summary deletion is currently the only feasible mode of cleanup. If you are going to continue sabotaging these efforts, enabling the abuser, Arbcom input might have to be sought, after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of why you are doing this. I am suggesting that you need to consider what you prod and not get sniffy when another editor deprods for a good reason. And I am not misreading the situation at all. I have read comments from one of your oppos in this project that definitely suggest they would like to eliminate most Nazi material from Wikipedia. I am not sabotaging any efforts. I have deprodded a handful of articles that I believe are valid, as is my right. Do you really think that throwing threats around is worthy of an admin? I really find your arrogant tone against a fellow admin and highly experienced editor to be exceptionally insulting and would ask you to consider what you write. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I will continue treating you as you deserve. Yes, de-PRODing is your "right" – but if you then walk away idly leaving the horseshit festering in those articles, then you are just as much personally responsible for the remaining falsifications as the abuser who first put them there. If you feel there's a valid article to be written, then do the right thing and write it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no more patience with your unpleasantness and arrogance. This conversation is over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

George Davies (pacifist)

I would like to propose that this article be renamed - either as 'George M. Ll. Davies' (my preference); or alternatively by reverting to the original name 'George Maitland Lloyd Davies'. I have explained why on the article's talk page. Very briefly, the subject of the article was (and is) generally known by one or other of these names - I think there is a majority practice (which included the man himself !) in favour of the shorter version - George M. Ll. Davies. What do you think ? Kind regards, Alan Griffiths Gwedi elwch (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong emigrants to England

Please note that "Hong Kong emigrants to England" includes British Citizens of Hong Kong died before 1997. -- hoising (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. However, putting a cat into a supercat does not mean that every article within that cat has to fall into the supercat, only that the majority do. Hong Kong is obviously a complex case, but I think it's entirely reasonable for it to be in this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Nanjing Massacre

An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just want to tell you

That this is an amazing thing, thank you for working on it.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's a never-ending work! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It must really be. I look forward to when you feel ready to post it in mainspace!★Trekker (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Necrothesp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rose Hill School, Alderley

Shouldn't this be Rose Hill School, Gloucestershire instead per WP:UKPLACE? I thought we usually only use the settlement if it is a town or city, not a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Bethany School, Goudhurst as Goudhurst is only a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the intention of WP:UKPLACE actually. Personally I don't have a problem with using villages as disambiguators. And we'd surely have to make an exception for buildings like churches anyway? I don't see any real problem with schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll tag Category:People educated at Rose Hill School (Alderley) and Category:People educated at Bethany School (Goudhurst, Kent) to mach the current article locations. For churches, yes they are generally disambiguated by settlement, even if a village but I though for other types of places, generally the county if sufficient, but I'm fine with either at the moment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Terry stop (Wikiproject Law Enforcement)

Hi Necrothesp, I'm contacting you since you are listed as an Assistant Coordinator at the Wikiproject Law Enforcement page. This is in reference to Terry stop. A lot of work has been done on it recently. Currently your project lists it as a "start-class" with no rating on your project's importance scale. If you don't mind, can you reassess the page and update the template on talk:Terry stop. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bishop's Stortford College

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bishop's Stortford College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bishopsstortfordcollege.org/176/history. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reyk _YO! 10:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Bishop's Stortford College

Thanks for just wheeling in without even the courtesy of consultation, and with an objectionable edit summary. You are right of course, this promo, largely by COI editors without a singe WP:RS is just what makes Wikipedia so respected for its high standards Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted it about an hour after the notice was slapped on it! Not a lot of 'consultation' or 'courtesy' there, was there? I created the article, which is clearly on a notable topic, long ago when our referencing standards were far less developed. And no, I was not responsible for the copyvio. Common sense would dictate the removal of the offending material, not the entire article. Doing the latter without any attempt at editing is leaning towards deletionism, which is one of the other banes of Wikipedia. All it needed was a bit of deletion or paraphrasing of the history. As I said, it wasn't hard! Apologies if you took offence at that, but the deletion of articles on clearly notable topics for no good reason is one thing that really irritates me about Wikipedia. As to reliable sources, it actually has two (yes, the school's own website is an RS for information about the school), so I'm not sure what you mean there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Much of the text is written by at least three COI editors, one blocked, and it's larded with unsourced promotional claims. I'm not aware that articles are kept just because the topic is notable regardless of any other problems, and I did post an explanation of my action to GF editor DuncanHill, as a matter of courtesy. Anyway, I've said my piece, and obviously I'll walk away from this article, which I imagine will retain its obvious problems indefinitely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are. That's why AfD is for non-notable topics, not poor articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ranks

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback on my edits. I apologise for any inconvenience caused, if any, as I'm quite a noob here on Wikipedia xD. By the way, I've noticed you've been following a lot of my edits. Thanks for your hard work.

Cheers, Itzsdgyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzsdgyyy (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of the articles on ranks, so I spot changes on my watchlist. No inconvenience. Keep up the productive editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know anymore.

Hello, I noticed an IP edited a page accusing you of being a "warring family member" here Kb03 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kb03: Thanks for the heads-up. Not guilty! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The three Governors

There are only three remaining "Governor" articles currently on Wikipedia (and no "Senator" articles, although there are about 46 "Mayor" articles). I just submitted an RM at Talk:John Atwood (Assistant Governor), and your comments on that are welcome. I am also planning to do something about the other two as well – they are Nicholas Cox (Lieutenant-Governor) and William Codrington (MP and Gibraltar Governor). If you have suggestions about what should be done with them, you're hereby invited to provide the suggestions, to file your own RMs, or to make speedy moves. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved both the latter to "British Army officer", as most appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees 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/Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees 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. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nickname shortcut

I couldn't figure out what I had done wrong after trying to link to it in an edit summary as I done dozens if not hundreds of times, but WP:NICKNAME and MOS:NICKNAME frustratingly go different places. Thanks for correcting my error! JesseRafe (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

They do. Confuses me sometimes too. No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic

I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please explain

Could you please explain what I have done wrongly here?--86.29.222.228 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Church of Sweden cathedrals has been nominated for discussion

Category:Church of Sweden cathedrals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Falling Sickness (band)

The article Falling Sickness (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band.

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. SITH (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Falling Sickness (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Falling Sickness (band) 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/Falling Sickness (band) 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. SITH (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

James Lind

Hi, wondering why you removed the Naval surgeons category from the article in James Lind?[3] -- Euryalus (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see you created a subcat. One issue though: the Royal Navy Medical Service was formalised in 1832, and naval surgeons whose careers were entirely prior to that date (Lind, for example) weren't members of it. Is it accurate to include them in this subcat when it post-dates them? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't actually create the cat. It was already in existence. I just added it to the new cat. Yes, I think it's reasonable to use that category for all Royal Navy surgeons and medical officers, even those who served before the formal creation of the service. We have done that in the past and it allows all RN medical officers to be in the same category, leaving Category:Naval surgeons for all countries. Although maybe it should be renamed Category:Naval doctors to cover all eras and countries? Although RN MOs still use the historic prefix no matter what their specialty, "naval surgeon" is a rather archaic term usually associated with the age of sail and most naval doctors these days aren't actually surgeons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Article deletion…?

Could I please ask for your advice? Could you look again at September_2,_1692_letter_by_Cotton_Mather, which you have already weighed in on, regarding the move request I submitted last week. I am increasingly concerned about the level of WP:OR in it and have encountered a lot of WP:OWNERSHIP issues when I've tried to edit the article. Upon further reflection, it's not clear to me that this is even worth an article. While the existence and general content of the letter is referred to in most current secondary sources about the Salem witchcraft trials (See the end of the Sources and Notability section of the Talk Page), the particulars of this specific physical manuscript is a non-issue to historians, but it seems to be solely the interest of the main editor. I am considering nominating it for deletion, but I've never done this before, and I suspect that with the WP:OWNERSHIP issues, the editor may really push back. I'd appreciate your input. Ogram (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Why

do you believe that the reader is better-served if the article 'bout Arts College railway station stays in a stand-alone bare-bones form? I can vouch for the fact of that station not receiving any coverage in any RS; ever. Why shalln't WP:NOPAGE be invoked? ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do. Railway stations are notable. I would invoke WP:STUB! Stubs are perfectly valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The question started with why. At any case, what about creating a list of all stations in the route with a line or two devoted to each entry pending which they can be mass-redirected? ∯WBG^converse 10:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I maintain and will continue to maintain that all stations are notable and deserving of articles, whether they are stubs or not. And consensus clearly backs me up. I'm frankly mystified at the amount of effort some editors spend on attempts to get articles on sensible topics deleted. That's not what I'm here for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As I am mystified at the perpetual stupidity of a few persons. Ta, ∯WBG^converse 11:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That was a personal attack. Any more like that and I shall report you. If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, please don't bother posting on my talk page again. Ta. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As was your statement I'm frankly mystified at the amount of effort some editors spend on attempts to get articles on sensible topics deleted. which fitted the definition of aspersion.

I came to your t/p to discuss whether there was any common ground to proceed (and more imp. to understand why you seek for standalone articles and believe the reader to better served rather than in a list where he can glance a lot of accompanying info). I did not come over here to hear about the motivations behind my effort.

Feel free to report me; as you wish. ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wondering why editors are expending effort deleting articles is not in the same category as directly calling another editor stupid. You're not worth the effort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. ∯WBG^converse 11:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ages

I'm probably not doing this response correctly. I apologize.

It is indeed subjective. The article states Jean Baptiste became captain of the first rank at the age of "only" 32. How do you know that 32 was a young age for someone to become captain? This person lived in the 1700s/1800s. What was the life expectancy then? Maybe 32 was old. I believe simply putting that he was 32 is sufficient. The reader knows that Baptiste was 32 when he became captain. Period. But to write "only 32" is supposed to make the reader aware that this was an unusual accomplishment for a person in his early 30s. Again, how do you know that?

Also, can you please show me proof that "age xx" instead of "age of xx" is horribly (really, HORRIBLY?) colloquial? Why put a preposition when one isn't necessary? Genarians (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC) genarians

That may be a borderline one. But most of the others are not. Becoming Emperor at the age of 6 is very young. Becoming head of a pathology department at the age of 24 is very young. Graduating with a degree at the age of 13 is very young. This is common sense, not subjectivity. There is no problem with highlighting this fact. Also note that this is usually the only reason for highlighting their age in the first place. With the "only" bit removed the age, and sometimes the whole sentence, is rendered completely completely extraneous.

Because it's bad English! The sort of abbreviation that would be found on a text message, not an encyclopaedia! The preposition is necessary in decent English. I don't know where you come from, so maybe this is a WP:ENGVAR issue and your preferred form is colloquially common where you're from, but formal English is always written like this wherever you come from. In any case, it's already written like this. Why would you change perfectly good English? It suggests you think the original writer has written bad English and it should be changed to your preferred version, which is certainly not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question, I come from the Midwest section of the United States (Indiana and Illinois). I'm not sure where the authors of the following articles are from, but I would assume they are well-versed in writing standard English, as their articles appeared in the on-line versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the New York Times, both well-respected institutions.

Below are examples from Britannica.com articles where the author wrote "at age" instead of "at the age of". Also, you'll note that none of the ages are qualified with the word "only".

• Helen Keller: "At age 14 she enrolled in the Wright-Humason School for the Deaf in New York City, and at 16 she entered the Cambridge School..."
• Louis XIV: "He remained devoted to her; even at age 70 she was..."
• Tara Lapinski: "At age three she began roller-skating classes..."
• Michaela DePrince: "At age five she enrolled in the Rock School..."
• John Locke: "It was to this already famous institution that Locke went in 1647, at age 14."
• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky: "At age four he made his first recorded attempt at composition..."
• Pelé: "Pelé made his international debut in 1957 at age 16 and the following..."
• Al Capone: "He attended school until the sixth grade, quitting school at age 14 after striking..."
• P.T. Barnum: "In 1829, at age 19, Barnum married a 21-year-old Bethel woman..."
• Katherine Johnson: "In 1937, at age 18, Coleman graduated with highest honours from West Virginia..."
• Alexander Graham Bell: "At age 11 he entered the Royal High School at Edinburgh..."
• Martha Jefferson: "The young widow returned to her parents' plantation home in colonial Virginia with her young son, John, who later died at age 3."

Here are a sample of New York Times articles where the author wrote "at age" instead of "at the age of". Again, please notice the absence of the word "only".

• Nov 3, 2016 - "Einstein had his annus mirabilis at age 26..." (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/science/stem-careers-success-achievement.html)
• Aug 4, 2018 - "Ellen Scanlon, who lives in San Francisco, became a first-time mother three months ago at age 40." (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-birth-age-gap.html)
• Feb 8, 2017 - "At age 105, Robert Marchand, a French amateur cyclist..." (https://www.nytimes.com/.../lessons-on-aging-well-from-a-105-year-old-cyclist.html)
• Dec 6, 2018 - "The study, in Pediatrics, found that at age 11, the children were spending..." (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/well/.../children-move-less-starting-at-age-6.html)
• Dec 28, 2016 - "In 2004 in Toronto, Whitlock ran 2:54:48 at age 73 in what is widely..." (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/sports/ed-whitlock-marathon-running.html)
• Sep 10, 2017 - "In 1997, at age 16, Hingis won three Grand Slam singles titles..." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/sports/.../us-open-girls-final-anisimova-gauff.html)
• Dec 21, 2016 - "As people mature, reshaping of the brain slows, but in the frontal lobe new links are still forming at age 30." (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/.../youre-an-adult-your-brain-not-so-much.html)
• Jan 10, 2019 - "Cervical cancer screening starts at age 21." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/well/live/when-to-start-with-a-gynecologist.html)
• Nov 30, 2018 - "Another daughter, Robin, died of leukemia at age 3 in 1953." (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/politics/george-hw-bush-dies.html)
• Apr 7, 2017 - "In 1980, at age 57, he coinvented the lithium-ion battery..." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/.../to-be-a-genius-think-like-a-94-year-old.html)

Genarians (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)genarians

So it's American colloquial style (yes, newspapers use colloquial style; surprised about Britannica, but there you go). However, most of the articles you have changed are not about Americans. See WP:ENGVAR. And it is not in any case acceptable to alter one correct style to another that you prefer. Please leave it as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why move James Richard Dacres articles?

You reverted a move of two articles, James Richard Dacres (1749–1810), and James Richard Dacres (1788–1853). Why? The revert is contrary to WP:PRECISION. Note both moves respective talk pages. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Full dates are not generally used as disambiguators. Please see WP:NCPDAB for our standard form of disambiguation for biographical articles. It is not in any way contrary to WP:PRECISION. If it was, we'd use full dates for everyone who needs disambiguation (since few people with the same name have exactly the same dates). We do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with full dates, it's about you re-adding "Royal Navy officer", which does not distinguish them, which is against PRECISION. (If you want to change year-range to born year, fine, but since their professional lives overlap, it's not always a helpful distinction, but, yes, it's a distinction of some sort.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And both David Bakers in the example in WP:NCPDAB are poker players. Using your logic, we wouldn't actually need to add their occupation to the disambiguator, even if there were other non-poker players called David Baker. We do, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Before I take it to AfD, re [4]. What is your reason to believe this is an "accredited degree-awarding institution"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It certainly says it is. What is your reason to believe it is not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Without references, it can be a hoax. And when it comes to paid-for WP:CORPSPAM, I don't have much WP:AGF to share. PS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camellia Institute of Engineering. Please note that I agree that all properly accredited educationals institutions are likely notable. My problem is that given the existence of degree mills, we should have evidence that an institution is properly accredited first. (Of course, if it meets GNG otherwise, it is not an issue). But assuming that all institutions are accredited unless proof is presented to the contrary is an invitation to scammers to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. ("Look, we have a Wikipedia entry, we are legit"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

HI @Necrothesp, Hope you are doing well. I am looking for Wikipedia expert freelancer. share your communication details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehaksharma096 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sinhala vs Sinhalese

Hi Necrothesp! There is presently a debate (not a vote) on Talk:Sinhalese language to decide between "Sinhala" and "Sinhalese" in Wikipedia's article titles for the language. Please come and participate. Danielklein (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

wp:ITSACASTLE

Hi, i just revisited an old AFD linked from Talk page of an essay that I created, and I see your comment, which back then partly inspired me to create the essay (wp:ITSACASTLE) to address castles, museums, other public attractions which IMHO are pretty obviously usually notable. I went back because the essay is currently at MFD for deletion. Whatever happens with the MFD now, I do appreciate your original comment, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad my comment partly inspired you to write your eminently sensible essay. I completely agree, naturally. I used to agree with a lot of what BHG said, but lately she seems to have become ever more strident and insulting to those who disagree with her (I've been a recent target myself). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

St. Paul's, Deptford

Hi! I'm doing some cleaning up on the Deptford article, and noticed that St. Paul's, Deptford had been changed to St Paul's, Deptford per your move in 2014 (a little while ago now!). I've restored the dot, and thought you should know why. On Wikipedia the current consensus per MOS:STOPS ("Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening") and WP:CHURCH ("Dot (.) after St (St.) should be always used"), is that we use St. Paul's rather than St Paul's. If you come upon any other articles that have dropped the dot after St, you can restore the dot citing MOS:STOPS and WP:CHURCH. SilkTork (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nb, This, and ST's edits, are now under discussion at Talk:MOS. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, this is completely wrong. We never use the full stop on British articles. Note the exception on WP:CHURCH. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Simon Stevens

The term "healthcare executive" is not used in the UK. Healthcare manager might be better. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Given he's chief executive of NHS England, I don't think you can say that's strictly true! I would have used manager if that was part of his title. I did consider it. But given his job title, "executive" seemed more appropriate. "Manager" strikes me as rather lower level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've been working with NHS organisations for the past 30 years. I've never heard anyone described as a healthcare executive. Why do you think we need to change the previous title? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What, Simon Stevens (NHS England)? Because he clearly isn't an NHS England and that's not how we disambiguate. We disambiguate by what someone does, not the organisation they're affiliated to, as clearly laid out in WP:NCPDAB. I have no problem with moving it to Simon Stevens (healthcare manager) or Simon Stevens (NHS manager) though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hacked?

Based upon the last two edits ([5] and [6]), it almost looks like your account was hacked. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed; Necrothesp has already been blocked and locked, and the Committee is aware. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is Necrothesp. It should be fairly obvious, I hope, that my account has indeed apparently been hacked by some malicious toerag with nothing better to do than screw up other people's work and efforts. Hopefully normal service will be resumed when this becomes obvious to those that can do something about it (which sadly does not appear to include me). -- 86.177.23.111 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee; Bradv🍁 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp

Please email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org as soon as you are able. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Necrothesp, per the Arbitration Committee request at WP:BN, your administrator access has been removed. Please follow up with the arbitration committee as requested above. Restoration of administrator access requires a new request from ArbCom (or an RfA). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Next Steps

• Necrothesp, once you return there are a few things that you have to do:

1. Y Contact trustandsafety@wikimedia.org by email about recovering your global account.
2. Y Request an unblock here (any admin will process following a steward unlocking you)
3. Contact the enwiki ArbCom about the steps to recover admin acccess

Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

So Necrothesp contacted me offline regarding them having regained control of their account and set a much more complex password. As a result of this, and the above comment, I have unblocked their account. Steps will need to be taken to regain the Admin privileges via the stewards. Canterbury Tail talk 11:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, last step is to contact ArbCom and answer any of their questions, assuming everything is in order they will normally approve admin reinstatement via a motion, then they will request restoration at WP:BN. I've added advanced page moving access to you in the meantime, since it is your most common log action. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion for restoration of sysop privileges

Hello, this is just to let you know I've posted a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions for Committee to vote on the restoration of your sysop privileges. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your response is requested

Hello Necrothesp, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_sysop_privileges_to_Necrothesp. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.

Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:

The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 03:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

Douglas ‘Doug’ Lewis CBE (Philanthropist & former Royal Navy officer) to Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)

Hi,

I see that you have moved Douglas ‘Doug’ Lewis CBE (Philanthropist & former Royal Navy officer) back to Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) Please could you explain why this has been done.

I have been editing this after being tasked by the international NGO, the UK charity, the school and the individual himself. They were all happy with the changes I made. The first line now refers to "Commodore Douglas Lewis CBE". He has never referred to himself as Commodore since leaving the RN in 1997.

Please would you revert everything back to how I had lasted edited it. Thank you M-Geronimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Geronimo (talk • contribs) 15:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He is notable for being a Royal Navy commodore. He received the CBE for being a Royal Navy commodore. He is notable therefore under WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO #1 predominantly for being a Royal Navy commodore. He was in the RN for forty years; he has been a charity administrator (not a philanthropist) for fourteen years. This, to my mind, along with his rank and honour, makes his RN career more significant. The title you moved the article to is not how we title articles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)). We have our own editing, titling and notability standards, which are not influenced by outside factors. As to "being tasked by the international NGO, the UK charity, the school and the individual himself", please read WP:CONFLICT and note that it is not their choice how an article appears on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

wp:NRHPPROGRESS glitch

Hi, did I just see your username flash by, by your possibly revision-deleting a change to wp:NRHPPROGRESS page? I am trying to update it, ran a script to completion in this diff. Then did other tinkering, then re-ran script to what I thought was completion, but nothing shows. Maybe i blew up something? If you have any info, please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress#added a duplicate across El Dorado and Placer counties in California. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Corps of Army Music soldiers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Corps of Army Music soldiers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

Where did I did that? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For example. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, those were 2 or 3, sorry! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about front page

can you explain why the front page gets blanked a lot and edits are reverted? ping me IsraeliIdan (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: Pathetic vandalism. If you mean this, my account was hijacked in order to vandalise the front page as only admins can edit it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Not what I mean, if you look at the edit history of the front page, multiple admins blank it a lot and then the editing is reverted. IsraeliIdan (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean. Their accounts are hacked to do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You're saying that 3+ admin accounts are hacked every day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm lost now. The Wikipedia main page has only been edited a handful of times in the last few months. What exactly are you referring to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Prison officials has been nominated for discussion

Category:Prison officials, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add citations for the post-nominals you are adding

Hi Necrothesp, information on Wikipedia needs to be cited, and may end up being removed if uncited. Please add citations for the post-nominals you are adding, such as on John Peter (critic). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

All in good time. All from the 2019 Birthday Honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Update: The fact that you didn't initially provide the ref for the article I mentioned was a happy accident, as it caused me to re-Google his name and I found a bunch of missing information which was mentioned in a recent news article. Also I noticed that his book is mis-attributed by all official data-sites (sigh), thanks to an error by the U.S. Library of Congress, so I've begun to try to rectify that by submitting a correction form to the Library of Congress. Anyway, thanks again for keeping tabs on the annual Birthday Honours. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert/Robin

Hi Necrothesp! I've just done a ctrl-f search of Hypocorism and I see that Robin is featured in both the "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "A short form that differs significantly from the name". It was originally only in the latter category (until added to the former last year) which I personally think is a better fit: it can't be both at the same time. Just a quick note to say I wasn't arguing for the sake of it! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think it falls into the definition of a common hypocorism as per the MOS. Many men called Robert are known as Robin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft article review

Hello Sir, I was wondering if you might consider reviewing a draft article I have prepared for a London City Corporation individual Dhruv Patel (community organiser). Thankyou ES (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishseva (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

RSM and SM

Mate they're only explanations with sources, not rubbish as you claim. Kind regards Darth Tomotron (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they're meaningless rubbish. "carry the Chief of Army’s message down and across the ranks"! What the hell does that mean in plain English? Talk to people? "The RSM has leadership, discipline and welfare responsibilities of up to 650 officers and soldiers, as well as the maintenance of their equipment." So, just like any other officer or senior NCO then (and also completely inaccurate, as it suggests the RSM is personally responsible for leading those 650 people, not the CO or all the other officers to whom he is technically junior, and also for maintaining their equipment - very busy man, obviously!). As I said, meaningless management speak and badly written too. It's also a WP:COPYVIO given they're direct quotes. If you want to paraphrase and cut out the crap then do so, but please don't just copy and paste. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A thanks

Greetings, I am just giving a tip-of-the-hat and thanks for the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwent House. Also, I clicked on your user page link by accident, instead of this talk page, so read the comments under "Notability policies" while I was there. Starting backward with your "postscript": Please do not ever get too frustrated that you consider "why you bother contributing" to a point that might cause you to stop contributing especially if attacked. Admins are still "editors" and if someone is unaware of this, just wanting to create issues, or maybe just an idiot, that is on them. Your opinions as an editor clearly are a fundamental right of participating on Wikipedia as an editor in good standing and is not related to your admin work. The only stipulation (as far as I know) being that you not mix the two. You are transparent with your beliefs and if you close a discussion fairly that is all that can be asked. If you are "attacked" because anyone disagrees with you then they should be dealt with.

I have seen comments another admin made that caused me to start considering that I am not following the "letter of the law" to a point of detriment and now read your comments. I have likely been a little too good at AFD discussions so when I see a discussion, like the above mentioned article, I start looking harder. Some of the last few times that has not worked so well as some of the discussions still closed as "delete" but at least I tried. I feel I am an "inclusionist with provided sourcing" but that does not mean what is only listed on the article. Sometimes the state of sourcing on an article may not be very well presented on a notable subject which is why I think a before search (and during if someone else is the nom) is important. In the above case I can not imagine that there is not ample sources "out there", even if from possibly architecture books, that deal with the historical significance of these grand old buildings so have been considering just that, that I so far have just not located what is needed. The other side of the coin is that actual notability can not be argued against and this would be following the letter of the law since they are protected by statute. There is always two sides of every coin and we really should examine both. I think it is a checks and balance. A problem is that there appears to be an epidemic of world-wide back problems. To see the other side of a coin usually involves picking it up to begin with.

Anyway, even if I don't agree with an editor or an admin, it is their opinion verses mine and not something to fight about. I have learned that as an editor we can be passionate but not to a point of being so involved as to take it personally. I was saddened to read that you were attacked for you opinions. Someone else may think there were justifiable reasons but you are still an admin so apparently the more broad community does not agree. There are always those that will attempt to pick a fight "just for the fun of it". My advice: Don't back off from your opinions.

In case you may not have been told lately: Thanks for your contributions. Otr500 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I just do not know why there is a section of editors on here whose answer to anyone disagreeing with them is to attack and insult. One wonders if that's the main reason they visit. Neither do I understand why some editors love to try to delete articles on what seem to be clearly notable subjects. But anyway, thanks for your comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Jack Taylor (footballer, born 1924)

I've reverted the move and placed a hatnote instead, given there is no Jack Taylor (Australian footballer, born 1924). GiantSnowman 13:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Disambiguation doesn't work like this. The Australian footballer was born in 1924! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly what hatnotes are for - and you didn't even bother to fix the redirect! GiantSnowman 13:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. They are both footballers born in 1924, whether one has it in his disambiguator or not. Neither is more important than the other, whereas using the hatnote implies the English one is the more significant of the two born in 1924. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't mark non-minor edits as minor

Re: this edit: "When not to mark as minor changes: Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article" (WP:MINOR). Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Which template or tag did I add or remove? I suggest you check the edit history properly before making such comments. I merely moved the entry to its correct position and changed the disambiguator to a more accurate one. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Trier Cathedral

After a move, please - if you don't have time for a complete clean-up - change all navboxes which have the name. Firstly, because redirects are not shown bold, secondly to find where links really need to be changed, - not in all the articles connected by a navbox only. I did it for you this time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've always believed that this is the purpose of redirects. It doesn't really matter if a link is direct or via a redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Joint Assault Signal Company

Please move Joint assault signal company back to Joint Assault Signal Company. It is in fact a peoper name see page 22 here https://archive.org/details/The4thMarineDivisionInWorldWarII/page/n21. The very first unit carrying that name was the 1st Joint Assault Signal Company of the 4th Marine Division,which was then attached to the 5th Amphibious Corps. All JASCO's were capitalized as they were proper names. The same is said for Combat Control Teams, now part of U.S.A.F. Special Tactics Squadrons. Thank YouOldperson (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a proper name. 1st Joint Assault Signal Company is a proper name, as that is the name of an individual unit. But joint assault signal company itself is no more a proper name than infantry company or artillery battery. It's a generic designator which was applied to a number of units. Note that the source you cite reads "several amphibian tractor battalions and the First Joint Assault Signal Company", where "amphibian tractor battalions" is not capitalised as it does not refer to a specific unit, whereas "First Joint Assault Signal Company" is as it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning and have no problem accepting your explanation, save that the term joint assault signal battalion did not exist until the formation of the 1st JASCO which was then assigned to the 4th MarDiv. Yes in a sense Joint assault signal company is analgous to infantry battalion, on the other hand it is completely different. Would you write Seabee battalion or seabee battalion. Combat Control Team or combat control team. A Combat Control Team is a specific U.S.A.F.unit of which there are a number. A combat control team could be anything, a headquarters communication function for instance. I submit if one would write "Joint assault signal companies were specialized units created during WWII in the Pacific theater to coordinate ground, naval and air fire." Then the non capitalized term would be correct, but we are talking about very specific Units, who had a limited lifespan, that lasted until June 6,1944. I see a difference and not at all analgous to say "infantry company"Oldperson (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd write seabee battalion and combat control team. These are not proper names unless referring to a specific unit. If referring to a specific unit like the 1st Joint Assault Signal Company then they are proper names and should be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing Ranks

Thanks for the note - if that's what "we've" decided, then so be it. Might want to revisit that, though. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Been revisited and discussed a number of times. Trust me, the apparent sarcasm is unnecessary. I used to capitalise ranks too when I started editing Wikipedia many years ago; everyone did. This was decided by the community, not unilaterally by me. We now don't capitalise anything that's not a proper name. No reason for ranks to be an exception just because the military have a bit of a mania for capitalising everything within sight. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@FiggazWithAttitude: Necrotesp,I fail to understand the reasoning and motivation behind your argument and action, unless it is simply a disgust and disapproval of all things military. For instance in the article Pig War,there is mention of General George Pickett, but further on it is mentioned that he was promoted to general (genral what? general screw up? general jerk?. To say he was a military officer would be proper, but not Military Officer.

Because military ranks,by and large are both adjectives and nouns (and nouns with many meanings), the useage of them in communications should be capitalized to show that they are military ranks and not just "general" nouns.Oldperson (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

private,corporal, sergeant, lieutenant,captain, major, general are all adjectives and nouns, And only by capitalizing them does

You misunderstand. It's not my "argument and action". It's something that has been thoroughly discussed and agreed by the Wikipedia community. And you couldn't be further from the truth if you think I have "a disgust and disapproval of all things military". I am a former officer in the British Territorial Army and a military historian. I have created or contributed to many of our articles on military and police ranks (I am also a former police officer and a police historian). I know what I'm talking about. A rank is capitalised if attached to a person's name, but not capitalised otherwise, in line with every other term on Wikipedia. We only capitalise proper names. A rank is not a proper name. Incidentally, they are not adjectives; they are only nouns. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen @oldperson @necrothesp - I did some further research and this will be my final bit on this - I've been retired now for almost as many years as I actually served. Yes, we did have a mania for capitalizing everything (and YOUR apparent sarcasm is also unnecessary, although it is funny. If we take ourselves too seriously here then what fun is it? We should all lighten up and have a sense of humor.) Anyhow, I checked "THE MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATIONS STYLE GUIDE" (https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/LCSC/MCU%20Communications%20Style%20Guide%2011th%20edition.pdf?ver=2018-10-09-142330-790) page 156 states "Capitalize military ranks when used with proper names, but not when the rank stands alone".

That's a good enough reference for me. I stand corrected and I thank you for prompting me to do the necessary research . FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WRAF

You're just wasting your time by reverting all those edits. The links are still correct as they are, even though the article has been moved to a different title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But the new title was incorrectly formatted ('-' instead of '−' in the date) and I didn't want all the links being redirected through such a poor title. Just the look of the thing. Normally I don't have a problem with redirects (and I've pointed out to other editors that it's unnecessary to edit the links in the past), but such a poor and unnecessary cut and paste destruction of a clearly primary and perfectly good article, followed by mass moving of all the links, irritated me! Surely it should have been obvious that this was a poorly formatted title, even if it may not have been so obvious to those not in the know that it should never have been messed around with in the first place? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of James Bassett (missionary) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Bassett (missionary) 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/James Bassett (missionary) 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. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Fleming

I've relocated to 22 August and confirmed that is the date that the death was announced... GiantSnowman 12:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I enjoyed reading "Notability policies" and I can relate. I love the term, ""rules"-obsessed deletionists", and describes perfectly many editors I have come across. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Uniform section of the Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom article.

Regarding our recent edits to that section, you summarised that only City of London wear red and white. You can see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sillitoe_Tartan#United_Kingdom that the three constabularies of the City of London Corporation use red and white chequers. I think the article could be edited to show that. What do you think the wording of that should be? --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think adding them to the main body of the article would be undue emphasis, as City of London are the only territorial force to use it. I suggest a footnote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. Should it be a footnote or perhaps the following words could be added and the other City of London constabularies, with a link to this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/City_of_London#Other_functions ? One possibility would be to leave it as it is.

I find it helpful to discuss ideas with others. Thanks again. --Dreddmoto (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Mark Bowden (United Kingdom)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mark Bowden (United Kingdom). Since you had some involvement with the Mark Bowden (United Kingdom) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bhrigu Nath Singh

Just saw your de-prod. It says he is chair of ICTACEM, a professional organization, but that's not the same thing as a named chair. Is there something else I'm missing? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, look at his profile on the university website. Quite clearly says he holds a named chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Kate Ashley" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kate Ashley. Since you had some involvement with the Kate Ashley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

deprod; take to AfD?

On your edit...
Why? Could you please explain? I still don't get why it supposedly doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. (in accordance with G3 ...and G10)
(also, I'd like to note that I first considered just removing the statements that were not properly verified, or were contradicted by the sources cited. As is as is normal and proper, on Wikipedia ...but realised that, that would entail every single word, in the article)--85.228.52.251 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to support political posturing on either side. If you think it's incorrect then take it to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not Wikipedia's job to support political posturing on either side ...which is exactly why the article should be deleted. Every single word of it is heavily biased, and based on biased sources (very POV). Even the completely misrepresented source, which actually says much the opposite of what the article claims it does, is also biased (in the other direction). Not a single neutral source in sight. How is that not grounds for deletion by prod or even speedy deletion? Why would it require an AfD?--85.228.52.251 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then what is your problem with taking it to AfD? Honestly, just do it. Prodding is only for uncontroversial deletion. Since I have no bias either way, my deprodding shows it may be controversial, since prodding is, in my experience, often used to attempt to delete perfectly reasonable articles that the prodder doesn't like (quite often for political reasons). If AfD decides it isn't worthy of an article, then it can be deleted. No skin off my nose either way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

... Taking a closer look at WP:PROD, it would seem that I simply had a bit of a misunderstanding, in regards to the statement "uncontroversial deletion". There is nothing in the article, whatsoever, that does not utterly violate multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I could not fathom how it would not uncontroversially qualify for deletion ...but that is not what is meant by uncontroversial, as it is about whether people would object. Fair enough.

I'll freely admit that I, very much, don't like the article, but that doesn't change the facts that I've stated above. Bias is to be taken into account, but it shouldn't completely overturn the rules, now should it? Still, as you say, a PROD isn't applicable here.

I'm still unconvinced that it shouldn't qualify for speedy deletion, but... I guess I'll do an AfD, then. Thanks for the response. It's nice to be reminded that there are places, like Wikipedia, where the rules matter and higher ups actually try to be helpful and have integrity.--85.228.52.251 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Though I find it kinda ironic that it is perfectly fine and encouraged to remove unverified statements and unreliable sources, which, for that article, would involve a complete removal of everything ...but that it should be so much more difficult and problematic to remove the article. Frankly, there should be a Speedy Deletion criteria, for articles with absolutely zero verified content.--85.228.52.251 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now done a, sadly a bit delayed, AfD, but... according to WP:AFDHOW, I am unable to complete steps II and III, of making a AfD, so it's a bit incomplete...--85.228.52.168 (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have opened an AfD on your behalf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2016 Dürümlü bombing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you missed my response, that was immediately removed: Thanks. Nice to see that there are at least some admins, who are capable of civility and reasonableness.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nepalese people of Australian descent

A tag has been placed on Category:Nepalese people of Australian descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

nice one Shashwat2706 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Warg deletion discussion

Hi Necrothesp,

I didn't mean to change what you wrote; I thought I was striking out my vote and deleting the "keep."

Apologies for the confusion. Honest mistake.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If it was a mistake, no problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Necrothesp, Yes, entirely. I was looking at the wrong comment and thought I had !voted "keep" or "merge" (since I often !vote with two choices). Indeed, I hadn't.  Self-trout Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

John Elliot (brewer)

Missed the FRS... good catch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We can continue this on the talk page

People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages intended to name people by language than them speaking them, which isn't really English which you seem to know, so as according to South Africans's take on themselves Bantu peoples in South Africa does the same thing, naming them by language. Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples is not really meant to be taken as to be officiated but intended to be for this particular article to be of a proper title meaning, on what logical sense would it not be worth supporting for this particular objective if everything relevant to this subject is considered, opposing it would mean you're using insufficient information to form your opposition judgement. Untrammeled (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Grand Illusion RM

Hello. Well, I won't deny that I was unhappy with the consensus of the previous RM and this is indeed an attempt to start a fresh discussion. But I have my reasons. As everyone can see over there, a lot of opposing statements were made solely on the basis of the fact that the new page would need to be disambiguated. (And some others due to the consensus of the other RM in 2012, despite it being 7 years old.) Whereas according to Wikipedia policy, the original Grand Illusion disambiguation page has absolutely no reason to be named "Grand Illusion" since a primary topic clearly exists, which is, of course, the film. That is why this time I nominated the original disambiguation page alongside the film page. Would appreciate if you comment on that issue too. This is very clearly not the same discussion since this time it involves two pages and not just one. I have so far followed official procedures everywhere as was required. All I am trying to do is start a genuine conversation, which surprisingly very few editors have been interested in. Regards. Cinema Clown (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"positions are notable"

Hi, recently you deprodded an article that I had proposed for deletion, and in the edit summary you said "positions are notable". I am curious - I've not come across a guideline that says that - is there one? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Purely an opinion. But many ranks and positions like this do have articles. Not a candidate for prodding, I don't think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of an article for deletion

Necrothesp,

You deprodded the article Tilion back in November, and I have nominated it for deletion. I would like to hear your thoughts about this article at the articles deletion discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはNecrothespたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ossë nominated for deletion

When I was nominating Ossë for deletion, I noticed that you deprodded the article back in November. I thought you might be interested in the discussion, since you deprodded the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ossë. Hog Farm (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

about James King architect

Hey, after i added James King (architect) to the James King disambiguation page, you revised it to show:

• James King (architect) (fl. 1860s–1892), American architect

Because he served in the American civil war, we know pretty surely he was born before 1850 probably, but I don't know what the "fl." abbreviation means and I don't know where the year 1892 came from. I wonder first if you found any source (which I have not, nor has User:Zigzig20s who is also interested in improving the new biography article) identifying his birth/death dates? And what does "fl. 1860s-1892" mean, could you please explain? Thanks in advance! --Doncram (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Doncram, "fl." confused me when I first encountered it. It stands for "flourished", and I gather means these are the dates in which we have evidence the person was doing something. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Now I see a clickable template could be used (fl.) and that the latin word is Floruit. How would it be said aloud, I wonder? (Not expecting to ever be reading aloud such a list though.) And I see that Necrothesp must have gotten the 1892 year from checking the two linked works by James King; the later-built one was built in 1892 (that wasn't shown in article, until I just added it). Thanks, to both N and Schazjmd! --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad that's sorted out. Although I'm frankly amazed that people (especially those who write biographies) don't know what fl. means! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tanzanian people of Ghanaian descent

A tag has been placed on Category:Tanzanian people of Ghanaian descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

George Anderson (educator)

The School teachers from somewhere categories are used partly for place of birth but also for where they taught. Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Are they indeed? Where else do we have categories for where someone worked? The "from" categories have always been used only for where someone was born or brought up, not where they worked (or even lived) for a bit. Anything else makes a nonsense of the category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The category trees generally claim to be based on nationality, but they clearly aren't. Apart from any other consideration its very unusual for there to be any clear information about nationality. And all the academic categories are based on the institutions people worked in, as are most of the sport biographies. I think it's messy. Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the "people from" categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"people from" categories generally include people from institutions in the place. And they are subcategories of People by nationality.Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disposals Board

Hi, just came across some of your lists of honours which I found particularly useful when I had just started the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. I have reached the conclusion that the "Disposals Board" was simply a more colloquial term for the same body (see here). Also just to say one of your red links in User:Necrothesp/List_of_Knights_Bachelor is now blue: Alfred Mays-Smith. Thanks for your excellent work. Leutha (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Great. The Disposals Board apparently already existed as part of the Ministry of Munitions (as some of the people honoured for serving it are in 1920, before the commission was set up), so presumably the name of the previous body continued to be used, as you say, colloquially for the commission. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Deprod of The Hampton Institute

Hey Necrothesp,

Can you clarify why that page was not able to be PRODed? I checked the logs and didn't see any previous PRODs or AFD discussions (also, please ping with a response).Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: I said "not a candidate for prodding", not that it wasn't able to be prodded. Prodding is for blatantly non-notable articles, hoaxes and pure junk. This did not fit into those categories. It is well-written and fully referenced. Prodding is, in my opinion, overused and should never be used for articles like this. "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion", as the first line of WP:PROD says. "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." AfD is the best way to propose articles like this for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Woods Johnston and Categorising people by where they were born

Please may I see where this is stated. I strongly disagree. Home births are truly a thing of the distant past - and, in any case, it is just where the mother happens to be at the time. We no longer live in small tidily organised villages. Anyway—If it is true the category should say "People born in". Don't you agree? Eddaido (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not everything on Wikipedia needs a written rule. As I said, it's what we've always done. No, I obviously don't agree or I wouldn't have readded the category. The place of a person's birth is important, even if they didn't live there for very long. In any case, Johnston was born in 1839, when home births were normal. He was a Londoner at least for the first few years of his life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll give you an example. Near where I live (in England) there is a major street named after a famous Australian politician and he is also commemorated at the local railway station. He emigrated to Australia when he was a young man. He's not at all famous for what he did in England. He doesn't seem to have even spent much of his life in this particular area, even before leaving for Australia. But he's still commemorated here because he was born here. So I really think that claiming where someone was born is not important is very far from being the truth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of red-light districts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of red-light districts 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 red-light districts (2nd nomination) 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. – bradv🍁 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding William Morris (priest)

...Who is the other "priest"? I looked at William Morris (disambiguation) for a bit, and cannot figure out who else on there is a priest; I see bishops and ministers, but no other priests. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• William Placid Morris and Bill Morris (bishop) were/are also obviously priests! Just because a priest is promoted does not make him any less of a priest. Disambiguation must be unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ...Ah, there that pesky "priest" word in the Placid article. (Didn't look at the latter article, but that's okay.) And great ... I see the redirect has been updated since I posted my original comment, which was what I was about to do after reading your response. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your deprod

I am curious as to your motivation here in removing the deletion proposal from an article which has long been completely unsourced and also impacts on the social standing and lives of a large amount of living people. ??? Couldn't you at least have listed it for AfD yourself? Please do! I am not good at all that formalia and often make all kinds of mistakes in it. Just reading all the rules makes my head spin. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to go to AfD. "impacts on the social standing and lives of a large amount of living people" is hardly a reason for deletion. Neither is being unsourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I've been here almost daily for many years now. Do not feel at home anymore. Don't seem to know what gives at all these days. Thought I knew the basics since about 2010. Basic "pillars" like mandatory sourcing & consideration toward living people seem to be all gone in 2020. What you wrote has me absolutely dumbfounded. Best wishes anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how this impacts one jot on "consideration toward living people". Nobody whatsoever is being libelled or harmed by this article and I don't see how you could possibly suggest that they are being. As to sourcing, it is obviously preferable, but is not a reason to delete an article out of hand except for a biography of a living person. You will note that the equivalent Swedish article is sourced (although given I don't read Swedish I can't check what the sources say). As I said, if you think it should be deleted then take it to AfD, but I really do not think it's a candidate for prodding, although it almost certainly needs a rewrite. But being a poor article and being a candidate for deletion are not the same things. The only question is whether the topic is notable. And it clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be obvious to me that a published list of "precedence" considerably impacts on anyone not prominently positioned on it & even more so on everyone excluded.

I can find no equivalent Swedish article. Where is it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. If someone feels insulted because they're not in the list of precedence then, frankly, so what? This is an encyclopaedia, not an exercise in self-aggrandisement or self-validation. If you're not on a list then you're not on it. The link has been deleted for some reason. As I said, if you don't think the article should be here then take it to AfD! No skin off my nose. But as I also said, lists of precedence in individual countries are, as far as I can see, clearly notable topics, whether the articles themselves are good or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is unsourced, and I see no reason to discuss it in any other light. Anyone can write a precedence article, to the benefit or detriment of anyone on of off it, and upload it to Wikipedia without any sources. It is my opinion after years of experience that such work cannot be allowed here. All my comments here including "impact" are due to the article being completely unsourced. You don't seem to care about that at all in yours. That amazes me to no end. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You should know as well as I do that being unsourced is not a reason for deletion even at AfD, let alone a good reason to prod (apart from BLPs). The only criterion is notability of the topic! Quality of the article is irrelevant to notability. And how can the order of precedence in a country possibly not be a notable topic? Of course I would prefer it was sourced. But your objections seem to relate to people not being on the list when they should be. As though that was some kind of libel of them. Which is clearly ridiculous. I don't feel libelled because I'm not on an order of precedence! Neither should they. And neither should you on their behalf. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your assumption ("your objections seem to relate to people not being on the list when they should be") is dead wrong. If you knew me, you'd know how wrong that is. No need to try to psychoanalyse me to any further detriment.

The only reason I am still commenting here at all is because I am absolutely dumbfounded that an administrator on English Wikipedia, contrary to WP:DEL-REASON #6 & #7, could say "being unsourced is not a reason for deletion". So according to you, we do not need to save articles from deletion by trying to find reliable sources, as I have done time and time again? There is no reliable source for that article. It's totally obsolete. No reliable source can even be found for something that may have been long ago in the way of a Swedish order of precedence. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

My assumption is based purely upon what you have written.

[#6] Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources... [#7] Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. The first is clearly not true; the second does not appear to be. How many times do I have to say the topic appears to be notable but if you don't think it is then take it to AfD because prodding is not appropriate? That is all I am saying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What ever happaned to assuming good faith? You assume the worst again! Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify that article (by me and others) have failed. Thus, it should be deleted whether or not you think the topic is notable. I suggest you take it to AfD. That would work toward restoring my (good) faith in you as an administrator, and that of anyone else who might have peeked here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

How am I not assuming good faith? You seemed to be claiming that not appearing on the list (and/or appearing in the wrong place) was somehow degrading and affecting these people's lives ("impacts on the social standing and lives of a large amount of living people", to quote your first post here; "consideration toward living people" to quite your second; "It would be obvious to me that a published list of "precedence" considerably impacts on anyone not prominently positioned on it & even more so on everyone excluded", to quite your third; "impacts socially on the lives and stati of living persons", to quote your prod). If that's not what you meant then I apologise, but that's what I read and I think that was a perfectly reasonable reading of what you wrote. In fact, I fail to see how it could be read any other way.

Prodding is for the uncontroversial deletion of clearly non-notable topics. It is not for the deletion of topics which a reasonable editor would believe to be notable (like national orders of precedence). A prod can be deleted by any editor for any reason; I have given you a reason why I deprodded it. If you want it deleted because you think it is non-notable then it is your responsibility to take it to AfD, since I do not believe it is a non-notable topic. If others agree with you at AfD then that is fine. I really do not see your problem with doing this if you are so keen to get the article deleted. Instead you seem to prefer to argue with me about my reasons for a perfectly legitimate deprodding and suggest that I have somehow failed in my responsibilities as an admin because I have done something you don't agree with. This is, frankly, beyond me. And, I suspect, also anyone else who may have "peeked here". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are contrived & irrelevant. The article should be deleted because of the reason I bolded last time I wrote. I have never claimed that the subject per se is non-notable. I accept your apology and thank you. While you're at it you could aldo retract your absolutely horrifying statement that "being unsourced is not a reason for deletion". It's so non-Wikipedian that it bugs me to no end. People quit when admin's write things like that! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your ridiculous, overwrought allegations. "Your comments are contrived & irrelevant" can presumably be translated as "I don't agree with you and I don't think you have a right to say anything I don't agree with". The idea that such information would be unverifiable (if only in printed sources, which are perfectly acceptable) would seem unlikely; it would appear that there was even an online link when the article was written, although the link is unfortunately now dead. Of course being currently unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Not being able to be sourced after a decent search in both online and offline sources is a reason for deletion. They are not the same thing at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources.[8][9][10][11] So they do exist and the claims that none can be found are false. Is the current article a good one? No. Is the topic notable? Yes. Can the article be rewritten (by someone who reads Swedish) with decent sourcing? Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

All the sources you linked to are about former ranking which has not been valid for hundreds of years. The article is about a ranking which supposedly exists today, but does not exist today, and that totally and impossibly unsourced existence today is what WP:DEL-REASON #6 & #7 describe as reasons for deletion. There is no source for the content of the article as is reads now. That's why I suggested it be deleted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't stop it being a notable topic, as I've quite clearly said several times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A new article about obsolete old rankings from times of yore in Sweden would be a notable topic (as per your sources) or the current totally unsourced article (for which no sources whatsoever exist) about a ranking which is made to look current but actually no longer is used, is a notable topic? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Feichtner

Hi, you aware of this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Feichtner (2nd nomination) Neils51 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

John Lewis (civil rights leader)

I am interested in your arguments. I will do my best to cite some of my statements in article talk page. The U.S. textbook claim should be easy except for the shelter-in-place here that puts libraries off limits. My own memories give ma a pretty good idea of where to look. In the southern states of the U.S., there was a public struggle even mention the cvil rights movement in textbooks. Textbooks in the U.S. are selected by each state's elected school board. There should be adequate news sources as well as a few scholarly sources. In some the language may be coded. I have used your talk page rather than clog the discussion, since anything I may wish to add will take time. So, only one more sentence—I believe improving the article is much more important than any move—thanks for your time. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pages moves

Why did you move Charles Best (army officer) to Charles Best (British Army officer)? Which other army officers named Charles Best are notable enough for articles? —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Because "British Army officer" is the standard disambiguator for British Army officers and has been for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)o

Robert Peters article

I totally agree with you of disambiguator of his name be "writer" which is more apropos than him being a "Playwright". So I wonder why the final arbitration was otherwise. sincerely (Pjt48 (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC))

Postnominals

Sorry about that, I wasn’t aware of the RFC. I will keep the status quo from now on. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please also note that titles such as "Sir" and "Dame" are always bolded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Laura Wright

Hey, Necrothesp! What's going on with Laura Wright (academic)? —valereee (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually we try to disambiguate academics with their specific field instead of "academic" or "professor", which are terrible disambiguators. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Torrens

You reverted my edits to this dab page. Fair enough; IMO the purpose of the description alongside the name is simply to guide the reader to the appropriate article, and not interested in a potted biography, and what's important in that context is a matter of opinion. To me his POB is irrelevant; every Australian politician of that era came from Great Britain. HOWEVER. I'll wager that 9 out of 10 people landing on this page and really looking for Robert Richard Torrens are seeking the sponsor of Torrens title, easily the most notable thing about him, and my only addition. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've readded that. As to potted biographies, it is useful to add everything people were known for because we don't actually know what readers are looking for. Robert Richard Torrens was primarily a colonial administrator rather than a politician (and given he later returned to the British Isles he couldn't really be regarded as Australian, so his place of birth is notable). The economist was also known as a Royal Marines officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

On the subject, there are two quite different dates available for Robert Richard Torrens's DOB : 31 May 1812 and 1 July 1814. Encyclopedia Britannica; Australian Dictionary of Biography; Dictionary of Australian Biography; Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900; Webster's Biographical Dictionary (two quite different editions checked) all have 1814 (but DNB and Webster also have him the first premier of South Australia — he was the third) but of course they could be copying each other. A more modern reference has 1812 but doesn't say why they are out on a limb. Nobody's pulled the 3RR but we're probably well past that by now. As someone close to the history can you help? Doug butler (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion question

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cozzalio, I don't know if you saw that the result was delete. After your WP:commonsense comment, I was expecting it to close as no consensus but there were several more deletes in the last few days. I'd like to get the article back; it's the first time I've had an article deleted (first even nominated). I've spent a considerable amount of time searching on different variations of the subject's name and found more sources. There are now 20, up from 11 (I realize raw numbers are irrelevant). There are more newspaper articles from northern California about his Vietnam service, with one quote that his exploits in Vietnam were "practically legendary". I found that the effort that won him the DSC also got him an in-field promotion by a general who observed his heroics. I found another writeup of that action in "Ira A. Hunt (2010). The 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam: Unparalleled and Unequaled. - a couple of paragraphs there (in a non-self-published book). He even made the newspapers in the mid-70s for wearing his cavalry uniform to parades and for the eccentric hobby of steer-roping. It has gone from 915 to 1357 words. Could I impose on you to take a look and the newer version. I certainly don't what to recreate it two days after deletion if this version isn't much more likely to stick (or even worse, be G4'd but I think I've added enough to prevent that). Thanks. MB 03:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Recent moves

Hi, I noticed that you started moving some of the St John Ambulance pages to the country name in brackets. Though I personally think the change makes more sense, it would be better to keep it consistent with all the SJA articles, so should they all be renamed, or keep as they previously were? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely: If you look at Category:St John Ambulance you'll see that most of the articles use the actual name of the organisation. Since the English one, as the original, just uses St John Ambulance it would be normal to parenthesise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Necrothesp:, alright. I'll go and move articles with their original names to parenthesis. Thanks! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are any more that need doing. Names like St John Ambulance Australia are correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:German emigrants to England

Emigrants to Country B are not people of Fooish descent. They are Fooish people. They might become citizens of their new country, but that is a separate question. Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that and have myself removed hundreds of Fooish descent categories from biographical articles of immigrants over the years. However, it is a useful category to add to the emigrant categories. Note that people from country Boo who emigrate to country Foo are also usually regarded as being Fooish people as well as Booish people, whether they take citizenship or not, so it's not inaccurate. We have articles on many thousands of people on Wikipedia who have emigrated without taking citizenship but are categorised as, say, a Fooian writer as well as a Booian writer because they identify both with the country of their birth and with the country of their residence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think leaving it on the emigrant categories is misleading. The question of how people are regarded is entirely subjective. My father did indeed migrate from Germany to England. Nobody ever called him an English person of German descent. That describes me. But he could be described as a British engineer, because he did his engineering in the UK. People can clearly be described as "from" more than one place. This is of course not an issue confined to this category. It's widespread. I think we need a wider discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Which is why I was a little mystified that you only removed it from this one category, given it's on most of them! That's inconsistent. My big problem is that people do endlessly confuse "Fooian people of Fooian descent" with "Fooian emigrants to Foo". I don't have a problem with it on categories. I do have a problem with it on articles. Although the very stupidest categories have to be articles added directly to Category:British people of English descent, Category:British people of Scottish descent and Category:British people of Welsh descent! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I did think I should go round and remove it all over the place, but there are probably thousands of affected categories and I thought I should be surer of consensus before I was that bold. I have been removing Category:British people of English descent from articles. Should we try and delete those three? Rathfelder (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • They're useful as container categories, but that's all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
        • So I can just containerise it? Rathfelder (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I don't have a problem with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

William Stanley Moss

Hi - I am puzzled as to why you have done a redirect to Billy Moss. He is a well know author and never wrote under the name Billy Moss. The use of Billy was by friends, family and colleagues. If you look up his books etc, you will see that he is always styled W. Stanley Moss. In Crete he is not known as Billy Moss. There is no other such name on Wiki so I don't see where there could be any confusion? Huguº 15:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

However, his biography is entitled Billy Moss, which is usually a very good indication of the common name of an individual. But if you think it's wrong then I won't oppose a move back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes I think that it would be right to move back - see for example Patrick Leigh Fermor but known by many as Paddy. Hope you don't mind moving it back. Thanks v much. Actually, thinking about it, it might be even better to have the Billy Moss page redirect to W. Stanley Moss in order to pick up your point on the biog? Huguº 17:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again - I tried to move it back and have done something wrong! Now it says speedy deletion! Please would you correct my mistake as I don't know how to fix it. Thanks again Huguº 17:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing? There is no discussion on the article talk page about a move. Somehow there are now two identical articles, one of which I have CSD ed to allow for a move back. Please sort it out with a little bit of consensus. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Deprod of San Lorenzo, Carmignano

Hi, I see you have deprodded an article I proposed for deletion. Just so I can understand things better, what notability guideline were you referring to when you said “12C churches are notable”? MrSwagger21 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Common sense and WP:GEOFEAT. All churches of this age are heritage-listed buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

New Delsort category

Deletion sorting

Since you perform deletion sorting for AfD discussions at times, check out the new Delsort category/page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Products. Take a look, and note the criteria for posting there, listed atop the page in a box. Thanks for your work to manage Wikipedia! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

just interested

when every time someone starts a stub on an Indonesian village - we have to accept the rest of the 80,000 ? As a project we just sit down and watch, even if there are only one source or no categories or understanding of verification and the rest? I sort of wonder if there are any limits to this, or points to where there is no end to the additions ? I am interested in your opinion, not a rule or guideline... JarrahTree 14:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Indonesia should be an exception to the rest of the world? Every village worldwide is notable per WP:GEOLAND as long as its existence can be verified. It's not our place to make judgements as to which are or are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia is a project very short on regular maintenance and sufficient bilingual admins - and is in my experience, as I have lived there, I am not thinking so much of exceptions, just the reasoning behind geoland, thanks for your response, cheers JarrahTree 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Clemis Kuriakose

I'm confused, my prod clearly noted article fails GNG. I was wondering if you can explain your action, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus at AfD is that diocesan bishops of established denominations are considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea on diocesan bishops, I am just going on standard GNG, is there some SNG? Govvy (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No, just consensus over many AfDs. Nothing written down, as far as I know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I know nothing about this particular article or its broader subject, but having observed Necrothesp's comments at a number of recent AfDs and RMs, I would advise you to take statements like the one above with a grain of salt. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And I would advise you to backpedal on the personal attacks. I know nothing about this particular article or its broader subject probably sums your attitude up pretty nicely. I, on the other hand, do and have taken part in many relevant AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, now I see why you said it. You disagreed with my comments on a couple of recent AfDs completely unrelated to this particular topic so you thought you'd do a bit of stalking and vent your frustration on my talkpage by badmouthing me to another editor on a different subject. How very immature of you. I'd have hoped for better from an editor who's been here as long as you have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My comment is not a personal attack: it is advice to a third party about whether your arguments about notability etc. should be viewed as a good guide to what the actual consensus view on Wikipedia is likely to be. I happen to have observed several recent comments of yours that argue, incorrectly, that there is an existing consensus on some subject, in the face of clear consensus the against your position; anyone receiving advice from you about what consensus is should be aware of that. On the other hand, your second comment contains several unambiguous violations of WP:NPA; please strike them. --JBL (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. What I have said is only the truth, as is blatantly obvious. Checking my edits? Coming to my talkpage to make negative comments to another editor on another subject? Your conduct is appalling. When I have said something is consensus then that's what I have observed over many years of editing Wikipedia. When have I claimed consensus when there is none? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is completely appropriate to look at the edit history of an editor with whom one has engaged, and to put their talkpage on ones watchlist, as I have done here. If you would like me not to do this, you are welcome to ask politely, as I have politely asked you to remove the insults you've directed at me. I invite you to start a thread at WP:ANI about whether it is or is not appropriate to falsely accuse someone of stalking, immaturity, etc.; I would welcome the opportunity to have both of our behavior in these matters discussed in front of an uninvolved audience. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Starting a thread at ANI seems pointless, JBL, there are times when one should simply walk away, remember you posted on this talk page, which makes you in essence the perpetrator. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Edwards - removed person

Hello, you have deleted a person from the ‘Jack Edwards’ wiki page, I am just wondering why you have done this? Thank you. Banana the best editor (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In general, unless they are undoubtedly notable (i.e. meet one of our criteria for clear notability, such as being a member of a national or sub-national legislature, holding a high honour, being a top sportsperson, being a general or admiral), we only add people who already have articles (i.e. blue links) to disambiguation pages. And we only create articles for people who are notable. Youtubers have a very high notability threshold, as most of these articles are promotional in nature and most of the countless people who are "notable" only for being on social media aren't really notable at all. See WP:NBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Unfortunately I will not be making the page then, he is also an author as well Banana the best editor (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Tolulope Arotile

On 11 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tolulope Arotile, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tolulope Oluwatoyin Sarah Arotile, the first female combat helicopter pilot in the Nigerian Army, died in a freak car accident? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tolulope Arotile), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybank

fyi: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnet Maybank III , which you deprodded. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Assistant head" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Assistant head. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Assistant head until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Inviting you to take place in a discussion about Chris Mullin page

Hi, how are you?

As you know, right now the Chris Mullin page leads directly to the basketball player, which I find a tad ridiculous, as outside of the US, hardly anyone has heard of him, and in Britain when they say Chris Mullin they clearly refer to the politician Chris Mullin (politician).

I've started a discussion on the Talk:Chris Mullin page, under the title Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August_2020, and would really appreciate it if you could voice your piece there.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right about John Lewis

You are absolutely right!

I've created a discussion about that as well now, it's on Talk:John Lewis#Requested move 23 August 2020. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate page move

I have requested a reversal of your move of Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain to Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer). Chamberlain served as an army officer in South Africa as well as India, and was Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The page move was totally inappropriate, especially without any prior discussion. I suggest you open an RM headed "Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain to ?" so we can see if we can agree a more suitable title. Scolaire (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are a couple of alternatives, but what is certainly totally inappropriate is leaving the article at Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain, which was clearly not his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I should also point out that despite his service in South Africa, he was an Indian Army officer, not a British Army officer. Like most potential Indian Army officers he spent a couple of years in a British regiment first, but his main service was in the Indian Army, a completely separate service from the British Army. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That should probably be explained in the article body, but saying in the first sentence that he was an Indian Army officer suggests to the uninitiated (I would say 99.9% of the readership) that he was an Indian, i.e. that he was born and/or spent his life in India, which is obviously misleading. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It actually says he was a British Indian Army officer (i.e. a British officer in the Indian Army). That's what it says in all our articles about officers in the pre-1947 Indian Army, who were almost all British. The version you reverted to said he was a British Army officer, which apart from the first couple of years of his career was completely untrue. Many people don't seem to realise that these were completely separate armies. As usual, clicking the link will explain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for the use of "totally inappropriate" at WP:RM/TR. I was indeed ignorant of the Indian Army, and I was a bit worked up about the move. Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, many people seem unaware of the difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Amandebele" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Amandebele. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#Amandebele until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.​ Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Walter Elliot

OK, so you'd prefer to see a military rank he was given as a retirement present listed in the first sentence rather than a job title he had for most of his adult life. Fine. But why then remove the post-nominals that indicate that he (separately) had a (substantive) academic doctorate from the 1920s as well as the courtesy title usually afforded to registered doctors that he was entitled to before WWI? Yet more mysteriously, why remove the post-nominals indicating he was a privy counsellor and an MP? There doesn't seem to be any justification for that. And what is the basis for the "correct" order of the post-nominals, which appears at variance with the sources? Furthermore, if "Col Dr" is somehow unBritish, what source says so and why has no-one told the lord lieutenant of the West Midlands? In Elliot's case Dr is much more relevant than Col, and sources give his job title much more frequently than they do his pensionable rank, including [www.express.co.uk/news/politics/898785/Theresa-May-cabinet-reshuffle-speculation-health-secretary-Jeremy-Hunt-Dr-Phillip-Lee/ tabloid speculation], in which The Express points out that Dr Elliot was the last health minister so qualified. GPinkerton (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please just read MOS:DOC. It has long been our practice on Wikipedia to omit academic titles and degrees from the first sentence. As to combining ranks/titles and "Dr", yes it is sometimes seen (e.g. Rhodes Boyson had a tendency to refer to himself as Dr Sir Rhodes Boyson), but it is always incorrect. It is certainly done in the United States and many European countries, but not in the United Kingdom (any more than we use Prof Dr as many other countries do - one supersedes the other). We always omit MP as well, as it is a temporary postnom that is lost when the individual ceases to sit as an MP. Another longstanding practice. As to PC, this is never combined with The Right Honourable. You use one or the other, but never both. That's why PC is fine in the lede (where we don't use honorifics), but is not necessary in the infobox where the honorific is included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

it is always incorrect Where are getting this idea? The MOS, which I have read and which does not support this position at all, makes no mention of it. In fact, it specifically says that where an individual is usually known as a doctor, it should be included. This is certainly the case with Elliot, and we see that even a century after his heydey media sources are still using his doctor job title. Elliot only ceased to be MP when he died, so using the titles he had when alive (PC, MP) seems perfectly normal. He ceased to be fellow of the various learned societies when he died, so I don't see why his death should obscure the political post-nominals but retain the academic ones. Look at the way the pre- and post-nominals are dealt with on the (posthumous) memorial to him in Edinburgh. I ask again, what is the rationale for changing the order of the letters? GPinkerton (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean it is always incorrect in correct style. In fact, it specifically says that where an individual is usually known as a doctor, it should be included. You've misread it. Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title. In what way did Elliot have a pseudonym or stage name? We don't use MP, simple. As to the order of the postnoms, the order is laid down in correct style. It's not random. State honours and decorations (CH, MC) come first, then letters indicating state positions (PC), then fellowships (FRS, FRSE, FRCP). It is always done this way. Just because some sources may not have got it right does not make it invalid. Which sources are you claiming list the postnoms differently? Incidentally, why did you refer to the Lord-Lieutenant of the West Midlands? Nothing incorrect here that I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

OK so despite your claims there is no actual policy or source that says it's incorrect to use Col Dr or MP, or at least you won't supply it. And obviously the lord-lieutenant would not be styled Col Dr, but [his deputy might]. Anyway it's bizarre to arbitrarily omit the most significant post-nominals in a man's career and leave in the fellowship ones, which are no less limited to the living than is membership of parliament. And look at the illustration in the article. It gives the MP and PC before the medals, and supplies at least one of his medical degrees. GPinkerton (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, people often get things wrong. Especially on the internet. However, despite being on the internet, we are writing an encyclopaedia. We should get them right. Otherwise what is the point of being an encyclopaedia? The point about MP is that unlike most other postnominals, which once conferred are used for life, it is only used for the period when one is an MP. That's why we don't use it. I have provided the MOS for the use of academic titles and degrees. For correct order of postnoms, see Debrett's etc. Non-use of Dr with a military rank is simply correct form. I don't have a source for it right now, but I have been writing military biographies for decades. You'll just have to take my word on that. However, you can see an example of a Royal Navy medical officer at Debrett's: Surgeon Rear-Admiral Sir Ben Hopkins, not Surgeon Rear-Admiral Dr Sir Ben Hopkins! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Sırp Sındığı - proposed deletion

Would you be so kind and discuss this article, please? I suggested deletion and you can check the talk page why. Thank you, --N Jordan (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted then take it to AfD. Prodding is not the correct way to delete an article like this. It should only be used for blatant rubbish or clearly non-notable articles. This article does not seem to be either. It needs wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service in protectiong articles from tedious vandalism, and in this case specifically articles relating to WikiProject Military History. Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP content

Thank you for adding postnominals to a lot of articles, presumably the entire Birthday Honours list as represented in the encyclopedia, but now please go back and add your source. Rather than leave it to the page-watchers of each article (Steve Haake is on my watchlist), to find and format a source, you could add it a couple of clicks to every article.Yes other editors will want to tidy it up, to add "xxx was awarded/appointed yyyy in the 2020 Birthday Honours for zzzz", but a generic reference to your source would give initial support for the basic fact of the award. Thanks. PamD 05:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I was up until gone 2am this morning adding the postnoms, so came back to add full citations today (still not completely finished). It's just easier to do one first and then the other, but you don't need to worry that they will be done, as this is one of the areas I edit in a lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your later additions - I just wonder how much time other editors wasted in checking for sources for the unsourced additions to their watchlist ed articles, which could have been saved. Maybe another time add a batch, eg the MBEs, go back and source them, then next batch? The encyclopedia doesn't need every postnom to be added within 2 hrs ("there is no time limit"), but it does need every postnom to be sourced. Thanks for all your work. PamD 04:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Boxes/banners on user page

Hi. Could you point me in the right direction to adding those little banners to your user page, like ‘countries visited’ etc?

Thankyou! Heidi bradshaw (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to copy the code on my page and alter it to suit your own experiences. You can see a list of all the current userboxes here. They're being added to all the time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Motorway service areas

I have now created a Commons category (see Commons:Category:Motorway service areas in the United Kingdom) for every one on List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom other than Blackburn with Darwen and Peartree. As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination) should Todhills Rest Area be on there? Or is it actually also classified as a service station? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Deproding of secondary schools

Do you mind if I ask why you deproded all the secondary schools I had added PRODs to? "Secondary school" isn't really a reason and I said in a couple of the PRODs that they aren't inharently notable. So, I really don't get the issue is or why they were removed. Its going to be a massive waste of time to take them all to AfD now just so they can be deleted when they have been if you had of left the PRODs alone. There's other things I much rather be doing. Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, since it doesn't seem like your into answering talk page messages I'll ask that next time before you remove a PROD from a secondary school that you familiarize yourself with WP:NSCHOOL. Especially the sentence "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. Along with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and specifically "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." If you do a mass removal of my PRODs like that again without an actually legitimate reason I'll consider it vandalism and report you to ANI for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're criticising me for not answering a talkpage message a couple of hours after you posted it? Do you think that maybe I'm on Wikipedia 24 hours a day just waiting for a message? Sheesh! As you should know, prodding is for blatantly non-notable articles (uncontroversial deletion and PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected). It is not for articles that editors want deleted but can't be bothered to take to AfD. As you should also know, any editor can remove any prod for any reason or none. I do not consider that secondary schools should be deleted without proper discussion, which is why I removed the prods, as I do for any article that I think has been wrongly prodded. It is getting worryingly common for some editors to misuse prodding, and this needs to be nipped in the bud. To be honest, if you think there are more calls on your time than taking articles to AfD then don't do it. No skin off my nose. I'm not here to facilitate your deletion of articles you don't like. Neither am I here to be patronised (familiarize yourself with WP:NSCHOOL). As to reporting me for vandalism, maybe you ought to read WP:PROD and rein in the ridiculous threats. Maybe I should report you for this. What do you reckon? Be very, very careful about making threats to report other editors who have operated completely within Wikipedia guidelines. I await your apology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would indeed agree that the deletion of secondary schools is controversial enough that one can de-prod for this reason, see User:Necrothesp/Secondary schools although this should probably have been explained in the edit summary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

One can actually deprod for any reason (in fact, no reason has to be stated at all). Something that the serial prodders clearly object to and like to pretend is not the case. It has even been suggested in the past that I should be desysoped for deprodding! The deletionists really do not like to be challenged. Which is even more of a reason to challenge them and stop them taking over the project. They need to understand that Wikipedia is run by consensus and discussion, not unilateral decisions by a handful of high-handed editors who think they should be the final arbiters of content and anyone who challenges their decisions should be subject to sanctions. Like other editors, I check the prod categories regularly. Most prods are entirely correct. A handful, like these, are clearly controversial, and those I remove. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A few things. First of all, my comment about you not responding to messages was because I noticed that you hadn't written a response to the person who left you a message a few days ago. So, I thought maybe you were just taking a break from your talk page for a while or something. I do it myself sometimes. Second, the reason I brought up looking at SCHOOLOUTCOMES is because you didn't say the PRODs were removed because they are controversial. So, I thought them being removed had something to do with notability, because ALOT of people still don't seem to know yet that SCHOOLOUTCOMES was overturned. It wasn't meant as a slight though. I just figured you hadn't read the update to it. Third, yes anyone can remove a PROD for any reason. You removed like 12 in pretty rapid secession though (like two a minute or something close it) and they all had the same exact changeset message. Which gave the impression that didn't look at the articles or even weigh the pros or cons of the PRODs you were removing. last I checked people are not allowed to automated edits in that way and to me it seemed more like vandalism then you having a genuine reason. There is still a good faithed, proper way to do things. Whatever the specific guidelines about when PRODs can be removed are.

Lastely, and I know this more of a personal thing, but I've been involved in a bunch of AfDs for secondary schools (my own nominations and other people's) and them being deleted isn't really that "controversial" from what I've seen. A ton of the ones I've nominated have been soft deleted due to no one voting. The only time there's a problem is when someone isn't aware that the guidelines about their notability have been updated, or they just don't agree with the change (although that's extremely rare), but I wouldn't call someone disagreeing with a guideline a "controversy." Again, whatever the specifics of the PROD removal guidelines are, I do think if your going to use the PROD being controversial as a reason to remove it should actually be controversial. It just isn't in this case. Otherwise, it's just an IDONTLIKEIT thing. Which isn't in the spirit of when you can remove a PROD and is teetering into vandalism IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, you wrote Well, since it doesn't seem like your into answering talk page messages. Looks like you're suggesting I didn't want to answer you. If that's not what you meant, then you need to rephrase. Before you accuse other editors of vandalism, you probably need to look at their record (and also maybe note that I'm an admin!) - you were keen to come onto my talkpage, so it wouldn't have been hard to check my userpage and edit history before you posted (I always do). School deletions are indeed controversial. The reason many of us don't get involved in the AfDs any more is that the deletionists have made the whole atmosphere surrounding them toxic and we're tired of being mocked, sneered at, insulted and threatened because we have a differing opinion. It's easier not to get involved. However, I will still continue to deprod articles on secondary schools, as in my opinion it is a misuse of the prod system. They do need to be taken to AfD. And please remember, never accuse another editor of vandalism or threaten to report them without a good reason. Deprodding is never a good reason, as it is allowed for any reason and can never be vandalism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Lioli High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lioli High School 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/Lioli High School 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. Spiderone 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Re:Third Day

Hi. All the secondary actors on this show had minor roles. The fact that they don't speak doesn't mean that they are not part of the story (e.g. Tomo, who is mentioned in Summer as the guy with the boat, a crucial part of the story, and then appears in the sequence where Sam and Jess escapes). I usually only list named characters, but this show had several unnamed ones who appeared throughout (e.g. the Preacher) so I initially listed them. I agree with the removal of those characters, but I'd leave all the named ones. In this case or others, we need to set a criteria, otherwise deciding which one is more significant than the other based on how much they speak or screentime can lead to conflict, and it's subjective to WP:OR. I hope my last edit is a good compromise.--TheVampire (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually think the Preacher should be listed, despite not being named, so I have readded him. Just having a name does not make a character notable and not having one does make a character non-notable (note that two of the characters in the main cast are not actually named). Incidentally, many editors will remove any actor who does not have a blue link, irrespective of how important they may be to the plot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Hue-man Cao for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hue-man Cao 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/Hue-man Cao 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. Spiderone 11:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Request

Greetings dear admin...you have a very good understanding of Wiki policies and have also voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion on this discussion. Best regards 185.205.141.123 (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination)

Dear Necrothesp, based on your interest in military units, you may wish to consider voting at this AfD. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Involved

Don't you consider yourself too involved with these army order of battles articles to use your admin tools to restore one? It sure looks like something you should leave to other, uninvolved admins instead. Fram (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. I'm not interfering in the AfD process. I'm merely allowing it to go to AfD instead of being inappropriately prodded. Prodding is only for uncontroversial deletion. This clearly is not. Any admin can restore an article deleted after prodding. I'm only "involved" to the extent that I don't agree that these articles should be deleted and certainly don't think they're candidates for prodding (which is becoming far too commonly used to skip the AfD process, which obviously allows a wider perspective). Exactly the reason I'd remove a prod. If AfD agrees that they should be deleted then that's it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"I'm only "involved" to the extent that I don't agree that these articles should be deleted" as you have indicated at AfDs. Voting at AfDs, fine (though it would help if you would use policy-based reasons in your vote), removing ProDs, fine; both these things are allowed to any editor with an opinion about these articles. But once you started commenting on these AfDs, you were no longer an uninvolved editor, and shouldn't have used the admin tools. Now, what you did is rather uncontroversial in itself, that's why I cam here instead of going to ANI; but the issue is that you don't seem to recognise that this was an involved action, which you should refrain from. Next time, please go to refund instead of using your tools in such situations. Fram (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Undeletion says "An administrator may decide on their own to restore a page that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion." so there's nothing wrong with that, the article is at AFD anyway which is correct if deletion is still desired. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh, that'snot really relevant. An admin is also allowed to do a speedy deletion without a tag on the article, or to block an editor without prior discussion or warnings. Admins are allowed to exercise most of their functions without prior discussion, that's a standard principle, but is completely unrelated to WP:INVOLVED. They shouldn't do these things when you are involved, when they aren't acting neutrally but from a clear prior position. It's a rather simple issue; either you act as an admin, use the tools but stay out of the content issues; or you involve yourself with the content issues, but then you are, for these subjects, a run-of-the-mill editor and no longer an admin. You are not allowed to be both at the same time. Fram (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How exactly was I involved? I restored an article that was wrongly prodded, not one that had been deleted after an AfD in which I was involved. The fact it was in my area of interest does make me "involved" (to be honest, I find this claim utterly ludicrous); it does make me an ideal person to make judgements about whether an article has been correctly prodded or not. The resulting AfD shows that it was not an uncontroversial prod. AfD is the place for discussion of uncontroversial deletions, not prodding. You appear to be trying to make an issue out of nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I haven't disputed anything after the question mark in your first sentence, you seem to mixing up two things. I am not claiming that the article could not be restored and/or sent to AfD. I am claiming that you were not the right person to use your admin tools here, as you already had a clearly expressed position on the topic in related AfDs, and didn't come to this ProD as a desinterested, neutral admin but as an interested, non-neutral editor. There is nothing wrong with being an interested, non-neutral editor, but in such cases, it is best not to use yoru admin tools to keep the two aspects clearly separated, as indicated by WP:INVOLVED. There was nothing urgent, there are plenty of other, uninvolved admins who could take action: basically, there was no compelling reason for you to act differently than any non-admin editor would do, and there were good reasons for you not to act as an admin here. Fram (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly think no admins who restore articles that have been deleted after prodding have an interest in the subject matter? I would suggest that is exatly the reason that most of them do restore such articles. If they had no interest in or knowledge of the subject matter they would have no reason to do it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not after they have voted "keep" in five similar articles, including 3 on the very same day, no. Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification at WP:AN#WP:INVOLVED question, as we won't get a solution here. Fram (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that I find it odd that any editor would take an admin to task for urging discussion at AfD over arbitrary deletion! Wikipedia really is not changing for the better! Once we would have considered discussion a good thing and any editor who facilitated it to be doing the right thing. Now deletion seems to be the name of the game, and anyone who challenges it is criticised. I see prodding articles whose deletion is clearly not uncontroversial as an attempt to slip such articles under the AfD radar and get them deleted by the back door. I also consider the job of an admin to include challenging such behaviour, which is becoming sadly all too common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

All true, and all irrelevant. Nothing stopped you from doing these things just like any editor, outside the 1000 admins, would have done them: take it to WP:REFUND, get it restored, ask the editor involved to refrain from Prodding and instead to send them to AfD... But you shouldn't be using your admin tools at the same time, just like e.g. an admin is not allowed to close an AfD they voted delete in and is not allowed to delete the article, even if all votes in the AfD were for deletion. There are certain roles, certain actions, you got to keep separated, and this is a good example of it. Your previous presence at these 5 AfDs gave a clear impression of you being involved with the topic, of you having a predisposed position in these debates, and in such a case, you don't use the tools, simple. Fram (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Review

Halo Necrothesp, please review this edit Special:MobileDiff/990415131, I have improved and added some citations, but administrator has revert my edit, i don't know what is wrong, Thanks in advance, Regards. 115.178.196.30 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Zohra Shah.Lustead (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

I'd appreciate your comments at Talk:Commissioner_of_Police_of_the_Metropolis#Military_ranks. Thanks Greenshed (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision of Lance Corporal

You reverted my edits to this page. Marine, when referring to the American servicemember, is a proper noun, and thus always capitalized. Marines are the only servicemembers to take the name of their branch of service, also a proper noun. This is just a heads-up that I am reverting your changes to my original edits, so as not to start an edit war lol. Have a great day!It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

We long ago decided not to capitalise any military titles apart from ranks appearing in front of a name. This includes marine. We only capitalise the service, not its members. The armed forces of many countries love capitalisation (it is a common military conceit to capitalise), but Wikipedia does not. It is emphatically not a proper noun in normal English usage. So please don't start an edit war over this issue, as it really is an old chestnut. Many editors in the past have tried to capitalise the word in many articles for the same reasons you give; it has been reverted every time. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Mason (charity executive)

Many thanks for changing the bit in brackets. Your one is more appropriate. Also very interesting about the CBE award in the discussion. It took me quite some time to find her in the CBE list - because they used her married name which I did not know! --MerielGJones (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Republic of the Congo emigrants to England

A tag has been placed on Category:Republic of the Congo emigrants to England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Muhammadiyah University of Makassar

Hi, I'm afraid I did not understand your edit comment "clearly does" when you removed the "unreferenced" tag from this article. There are no references in the article, and only one link to the university home page. Please discuss on the talk page before reverting. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 14:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"There are no references in the article, and only one link to the university home page." Which is clearly a source! Ergo, your statement that there are no sources is clearly untrue. Maybe you meant no independent sources? However, that is not what the tag I deleted actually says. It says "no sources". This is quite obviously incorrect. This tag is added all too often to articles that clearly are sourced, if only to the organisation's own website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I was being generous. The link is not cited as a source, merely added in the infobox and repeated in the external links section. None of the statements in the article are sourced, and I still contend that the article is promotional in nature. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 05:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It is still a source, even though not independent. External links count as sourcing. An "improve sourcing" tag would be more appropriate and accurate than a "no sources" tag. The article probably is promotional in nature, but that's a different issue and can be easily remedied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of 'The Right Honourable' in relation to membership of the Privy Council of the U.K.

It is a common practice to use both The Right Honourable and PC in relation to those who are members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, as those who have been sworn into membership of the Privy Council, such as Sir Michael Hardie Boys, for example, are entitled to both the prenominal honorific style and the postnominal letters 'PC'. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. One or the other. Never both. It is indeed sometimes seen, but it is never correct. Do not mistake occasional usage for correct form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP

Thanks for this edit and the rest of your several hours' work adding the titles in the New Year Honours, but can you please now revisit them to add a source? You know that Wikipedia doesn't use any unsourced content, especially about BLPs. And if you're adding someone's full name, it makes sense to create the redirect from that name at the same time: I've done that for Halima Jade Cassell, because she's on my watch list as I created the article, but presumably you've added full names for other recipients too. It might be better, another time, to do a thorough job on one section of the honours list at a time, rather than rushing to be the first to add the info to as many articles as possible but without any sources. Thanks, Stay Safe, and Happy New Year. PamD 09:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a good reason why I do this. It prevents the honours being added incorrectly by editors who do not understand the honours system. Then I go back and add full details. But even I have to sleep sometimes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian people of Zanzibari descent

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian people of Zanzibari descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Peaked cap article.

I noticed your recent edits regarding female personnel in the UK section there. Thanks. Is it possible to add a link to information about the hats of female personnel in the RN and RAF? What is the term for those? Thanks again. --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Donald Duff

Thanks for adding MC and FRCSE to after Donald Duff's name. I tried adding MBE as well but for some reason it didn't work. Please could you do it for me as you clearly know what to do and I don't? Many thanks. Ronaldcamweron Ronaldcameron (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Mystra is"

Hiya Necro, good day. I cannot see any evidence that the minor Dungeons and Dragon sub group deity even registers a blip compared to the Greek city https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22mystra+is%22&num=10 - Are you sure you meant to support not oppose? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A mild correction

Hi! I was about to warn an IP, and I came across this [12]. You are, in fact, wrong about this. There is one case in real life where both "The Right Honourable" and "PC" should be used together. This is when the person in question is both a peer below the rank of Marquess (entitling them to the "Rt. Hon.") and a member of the Privy Council. Some people are - mostly former Cabinet members who have been kicked upstairs. So Boris Johnson should not get the PC because it is implied by the Rt. Hon., and Ken Clarke should because he gets the Rt. Hon. from being a life peer and is also a PC.

If you need a reference, see any copy of Whitaker's Almanac, in the chapter on "Privy Council". Philip Trueman (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

True. But I was referring to non-peers, as the editor in question had added both to articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Deprod

F.Y.I., when you de-prodded Sunlake Hotel, Jakarta, you must have done a rollback - you removed other changes. MB 21:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I deleted things that weren't true. Not unreferenced. Not an advertisement (how can a single-line stub be "written like an advertisement"?) -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I do grant you that the single reference is now a deadlink. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I misread the diff, I though you removed fixes to the infobox as well. I wasn't too concerned about the "advert" tag. But there should be some ref tag on an article with only a link to its own website in the infobox (even if the link worked - it should have more citations or self-published or something). MB 02:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jama Masjid, Chitarkoni

Greetings. My issue with the article is that the single source does not appear to mention the article's subject at all. So I wasn't sure that this building, as described in the article, even exists. It's been tagged for a month with improvement tags, without any attempt at improvement. Right now, it fails WP:VERIFY, would you object if I draftified it, to give the article's creator time to work on it? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

how to move between sub-cat

Hola! I nominated this https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Group_of_Institutions I tried doing a cut-paste between primary school to university sub-categories but I think I'm doing something wrong. How do I move it? A step by step procedure would be great! Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Tyne Improvement Commission Docks and Piers Police for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tyne Improvement Commission Docks and Piers Police 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/Tyne Improvement Commission Docks and Piers Police 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.

Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe Long

Thank you for the explanation for your change on the Wikipedia page for Joe Long, and I'm sorry I reverted your edit. I didn't know there was some sort of Wikipedia standard for discerning between legally changing one's name and what one is known as professionally. Please accept my apology. Classicalfan626 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium Gundelfingen

Out of courtesy, I should have pinged you when I quoted your opinion on the AfD discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium Gundelfingen. Is there anything more we can do to save having discussions with hard working editors who haven't the faintest clue about the papertrail that a school generates, and the location of the reliable sources in that location? ClemRutter (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it. The deletionists seem sadly determined to get rid of as many schools as possible now they think the RfC has given them carte blanche to do so. Trying to save articles on most schools (and even colleges, it now appears) in Africa and Asia now seems to be a waste of time (I'm afraid I've pretty much given up), but there is still a bit of hope with institutions in Europe and the English-speaking western world, for which a search will usually turn up a fair number of references. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do about the Kooperative Gesamtschule Elmshorn- No school of that title exists- the article refers to Erich Kästner Gemeinschaftsschule Elmshorn (KGSE) which collects 4000+ hits on a Yahoo search. Do we let this one slide, and just create a new article? Or create a redirect now to this false school? --ClemRutter (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've deprodded and moved the article to the new name. No reason not to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi admin...you have a very good knowledge of Monarchy system and have also voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Korean queen. VocalIndia (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the AfD has now been closed as a keep, but I completely agree that they are notable, as is any other royal consort. The editor who has redirected them appears to have strongly deletionist views and has prodded and nominated for deletion many other articles in all categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Deprods

Hi! I was wondering if you plan to make any improvements to the five articles you deprodded. If not, are you able to direct me to where I may find such information that demonstrates why they have encyclopedic merit? This will help me in taking the next steps with the articles, which are currently just better than worthless and not even directory-like. Thank you and have a good day! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

They are WP:STUBs, which are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Winifred Barker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winifred Barker 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/Winifred Barker 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.

4meter4 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Greetings. I'm here just to clarify that the cathedral in Basco is the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception and Parish Church of Santo Domingo de Guzman [13]. That is the reason why I requested it to be moved from Santo Domingo Cathedral (Basco) to Basco Cathedral [14] in March because the prior name is inaccurate, and I see that you also voted there.

The same goes for the cathedral in Calbayog where as a parish church, it is dedicated to Our Lady's Nativity but when it's elevated to a cathedral, it is dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul. Hence, it is the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul and Parish of Our Lady's Nativity [15], not the Our Lady's Nativity Parish / Cathedral or Saints Peter and Paul Parish / Cathedral (as most of cathedrals are parish churches first before becoming cathedrals). It will be wrong then, to say that Calbayog is the Cathedral of Our Lady's Nativity, but of Saints Peter and Paul.

For instance, the above cases of Basco and Calbayog are different from Balanga [16] where it is both the Cathedral and Parish of Saint Joseph. Like Balanga, most of the cathedrals in the Philippines have the same dedication as a parish and cathedral, but not with the case of Basco and Calbayog.

I hope this will bring light to this confusion. Thank you and best wishes in health. Crear2000 (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No confusion at all. But the fact is that it is known as Santo Domingo and it is a cathedral, so should still appear on the disambiguation page. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to list anything a reader might be looking for under that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. No worries. Crear2000 (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Candidate notability

I was wondering if are interested in looking at my attempt to describe when a candidate might be notable. I am open to feedback with the hope that we can have some clarity before US campaigns begin in earnest later this fall for the 2022 elections --Enos733 (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston#Survey 2

Hi Necrothesp. I've updated the RM to include alternative title formats (such as Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston), so if you would like to amend or clarify your !vote, please feel free to do so. I've also split the discussion from the survey to contain any protracted debate. Much appreciated, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please consider striking your opposing !vote to back a move to Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston? I've resolved to support this title out of all the options, and I'd very much appreciate your support. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

NIAH != RPS

Hiya. With thanks for your note here, and while I will open a related AfD shortly, to confirm, the NIAH is not a record of protected structures. It is a record of structures. Specifically a record of "objects of architectural heritage".

Kilbrogan House is not a protected structure (either locally or nationally). And, while there are ~40,000 records in the NIAH database, and ~40,000 records in the local RPS databases, they are not the same database. (Some that exist in the former are in the latter. And vice versa. But they are not equivalent. As they have different purposes and remits. And are governed by different legislative frameworks.)

The NIAH includes protected stuctures. But also unprotected fenceposts, relatively new phone boxes, farm machinery, sewer vents, steps and postboxes which are newer than my toaster. And, while I am not equating a Georgian house to these entries, I am using them to illustrate that the fact that something is included in the NIAH doesn't make it an RPS protected structure.

Anyway, am happy to have the AfD discussion. Including on other merits. But, to be clear, Kilbrogan House is not a protected structure. The owners could raze it to the ground in the morning. And, while many would be annoyed (myself included) it would not breach any protection order. As there is no protection order. Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi Necrothesp, I was just wondering whether you might consider bringing DrKay's tendency to assume bad faith to the attention of ANI? He's accused me of harassment and I don't know how to possibly respond to that charge. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Leonard Rowland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leonard Rowland 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/Leonard Rowland 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.

Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

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

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Frederick William Marshall

This is now a redirect, but you've got a couple of uses in your honours lists pages which are for a different person, who will need disambiguating. Or a dab page creating, if he gets an article. PamD 08:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD for École Mgr-Marcel-François-Richard

I PROD'ed École Mgr-Marcel-François-Richard, and earlier today you assessed it and decided to dePROD. I still think it should be deleted, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École Mgr-Marcel-François-Richard, and quoted your reasoning to deprod without mentioning your username. I invite you to comment there if you so wish. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia, Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For defending notable people! Looking glass 563621 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinion request

Hello, greeting, I hope you are doing well. As you are a respected editor of royalty and history, I would like to request your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada of Holland. Best regards. VocalIndia (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

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

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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