Jump to content

User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive18

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

The Signpost
18 November 2024

Cat merge

[edit]

Hi there. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Serie C clubs has been open for a week now with no opposition — it seemed pretty clear-cut anyway due to the renaming of the league to Serie C. Would you mind taking action? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. We have a modest backlog at the moment, see WP:CFDAC, but I saw no reason to delay this one. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about renaming process by bot

[edit]

Good evening! In this discussion, User:Zfish118 worries about the practical consequences of a category renaming procedure. How big are these risks when it's done by a bot? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the understand the discussion correctly, Zfiah118 is concerned about the way small sub-sets of a category hierarchy get nominated at a time, rather than the whole thing. This problem could be reduced by using semi-automation e.g. JWB to nominate larger numbers of categories together. I don't think it's the implementation by bot which is a problem for him, but the piecemeal decision-making process. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wool

[edit]

And a request: would you be willing to undo the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_18#Category:Wool_industry and relist it instead to give the alt rename a chance? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fresh nomination would be clearer. I have reworded the close as "do not merge" instead of "keep" so as not to rule this out. – Fayenatic London 07:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Accordance logo.JPG

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Accordance logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it has been superseded by File:Accordance-12-application-icon.png. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For all your great work on speedy CFDs

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
for your heroic ongoing work on WP:CFD/S, carefully checking and processing nominations. I just checked the history of WP:CFD/W, and saw that over 400 of the most recent 500 edits were by you. Thanks for keeping the process working so smoothly. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Oh, thank you for that. I know you had noticed one or two of the more interesting ones. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, BHG, it wasn't only the Speedy page but most of CFD... thanks also to Marcocapelle who was closing many discussions as a non-admin. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Can you do the same thing to Category:Denver Broncos (AFL) players that you did to the other categories here. It's the same premise. The Broncos cat was just accidentally left out of the discussion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: I think this would need a full CFD nomination. IMHO a speedy nomination would not fit the bill, because some others were specifically excluded from the merge.
It seemed inconsistent to merge players from selected teams into Category:American Football League players but, as that was the clear consensus, I went ahead and did it. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Titans and Texans ones didn't get emptied because there are others teams with the same name, so the (AFL) was needed to disambiguate them. Also, they would have been kept separate anyway because their previous names are different from their current names. For example, the Texans are now called the Kansas City Chiefs and the Titans are the New York Jets. All of the other AFL teams still use the same names, so that's why their cats were merged. It would look weird having a cat called "Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs players". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strigiformes

[edit]

In this discussion, I wasn't sure what exactly you meant to change in Wikidata, so I haven't touched that part and it's probably something you can better do yourself. There is clear consensus in the discussion anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the record, I decided not to merge them after all, as some other language Wikipedias have dual hierarchies by scientific name and common name. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for deletion

[edit]

At CFDWM I've listed a number of categories that have been emptied and are ready for deletion. I've notified User:Explicit before, who hasn't responded however (maybe on holidays?). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcocapelle, we covered it between us. I deleted the establishments categories, and tidied up their century parent category pages. By the time I came back, Explicit had deleted most of the rest. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Payments-uk-logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Payments-uk-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine

[edit]

Please explain why you deleted Category:Fellows of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. Your edit summary referred to "CSD C2", but there is no such criterion on the page to which you linked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up. I assumed that the longer name was a mistake. I see now that the Faculty of Public Health Medicine was a former name, so I have reinstated and redirected the category. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computing infrastructure has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Computing infrastructure, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan categories

[edit]

Hey, considering that there are several ethnic groups living in Kyrgyzstan (and its direct predecessor, the Kyrgyz SSR) beside the Kyrgyz, I think it's best to keep everything not clearly related primarily to the Kyrgyz ethnic group in the country level category.Anonimu (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy the to Category talk:History of Kyrgyzstan. Let's discuss it there. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mantic

[edit]

As per your refusal of Prod here[[1]] can you explain exactly what you mean (not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand)? I've looked through the Divination article, and I can't find any reference to "Mantic" there, nor can I see any reason why "Mantic" should redirect there. Again, not disagreeing with you, just confused! Thanks, Darkson (Another fine mess!) 13:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkson: Thanks for your note. I'll add more explanation at Talk:Mantic. Have you noticed "What links here" in the list of Tools in the navigation panel at the left? Because there are pages that link to Mantic, I thought it would be useful to keep it as a redirect. – Fayenatic London 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, and the explanation. To be honest, I don't think I'd ever used the "What links here" button, so had completely forgotten it existed! Cheers, Darkson (Another fine mess!) 08:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about redirects

[edit]

Someone said its ok, someone not. whom i can trust?Friendwip.kg (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at User_talk:Friendwip.kg#Redirecting_articles. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why you empty category Kyrgyz

[edit]

Do you have opposite meaning against [Category:Kyrgyz]?Friendwip.kg (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were invited (User_talk:Friendwip.kg#Category:Kyrgyz_has_been_nominated_for_discussion) to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_14#Category:Kyrgyz. I closed that discussion and implemented the consensus. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of filmmakers

[edit]

Hello! Just a reminder, the Film project does not cover biography articles. Therefore, the {{WikiProject Film}} banner should not be added to articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortdj33: Thanks, will do! – Fayenatic London 12:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zigzig20s/Harvey Silbert

[edit]

Hi. I see you've just paid attention to User:Zigzig20s/Harvey Silbert. I'd moved it to mainspace after it was nominated for AFD, as I felt I needed more time to work on it and moved it back to mainspace. However, do you think I should just delete it and save it privately on my computer? I do not have time for Wikidrama.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: Pardon me, I hadn't realised it had been nominated at AfD. I was checking links to a category that had been renamed, and I deleted or blanked some of the other user pages that I found, but your page looked fairly decent at first glance. I thought tagging it would at least prompt you to remember it and perhaps get it ready for publishing, if it's not already. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should I just submit it? And if the community does not like it, I'll keep it privately on my computer.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did it work? But if it gets deleted, it doesn't matter. I won't fight this.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: Yes, submitting it has moved it to Draft:Harvey Silbert and apparently put it into a queue for attention.
Although it has lots of apparent citations, IMHO it doesn't state clear grounds for notability (WP:BIO). I suggest you make this as clear as you can. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is certainly notable in Beverly Hills and Jerusalem. But I don't have time to argue for it frankly. That's why I'd parked it in userspace.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question at WP:VPT

[edit]

Hello Fayenatic london. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#My Sandbox changed by other editors. Though your name isn't mentioned, I think you are the person being referred to. Presumably you noticed the still-active categories in the private copy. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: thanks for the heads-up. I have responded there. – Fayenatic London 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Drake‎

[edit]

Are you proposing to add the other cats to the nomination? I'll make my comment on the nom in due course. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please excuse my piecemeal editing today. Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 5, and I will tag the others. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, I was just wondering if I should pick up the baton or let you continue. BTW, Thanks for the nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process deletions

[edit]

You might want to intervene in this discussion and the linked follow-up discussion on the user talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reinstated the categories. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Id like your opinion

[edit]

Can I have you look at the draft for SharkLinux and maybe help me regarding its deletion. I had thought I put forward enough sources to satisfy notability standard in the deletion discussion, however, it was deleted (I ask that you review the archived discussion just to ensure things went as you would have expected) There is also some confusion on my part as the admin who deleted and restored to a draft advises that sources need to be referenced within the article to count towards notability which is at odds with my policy research. I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Marpet98 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marpet98: I agree with the admin's advice that you mention above. The page Draft:SharkLinux needs citations from better sources, see WP:Identifying reliable sources. If the sources listed in the Dropbox document (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharkLinux) are good enough, then add them to the draft. Let me know when you have done it, and I will be willing to format them for you. – Fayenatic London 07:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SharkLinux should not be confused with SharkOS at https://www.distrowatch.com/ LoopZilla (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See further follow-up at User_talk:L3X1#Request_your_guidance. – Fayenatic London 16:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additions were made. May I ask you to review? Marpet98 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Thank you for your assistance and contributions towards the SharkLinux rewrite. Are the improvements to content and additional citations substantial enough to remedy, at least to an acceptable level, the inadequacy of the previous version? Marpet98 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Testament apocrypha

[edit]

I don't know why you removed "Category:Old Testament apocrypha" from articles of biblical books associated with the Deuterocanon and just left "Category:Deuterocanonical books" alone, but I've placed back the category. If you have any concerns, discuss at the talk page of "Category:Old Testament apocrypha" per WP:BRD. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we continued this at Category talk:Old Testament apocrypha. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias stuff

[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_16#Reverting_mass_moves_by_sock_accounts. I don't what followed that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 00:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Apparently no action was taken to revert the changes. I will nominate the top of the hierarchy for review.
Have you got these?
– Fayenatic London 08:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those definitely look like him, I don't usually block unless it's an active IP at that time as it won't affect him but just some poor soul comes along to it after him (not very likely though). I pinged GoldenRing on the AN discussion, and I think these moves are exactly where his script helped (and I've completely forgotten how or where it is) but maybe he can help based on the timings of the Eldizzino account. Also, I stay away from cats except in straightforward cases precisely because I don't want to mess things up further. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More:
– Fayenatic London 11:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Attested not introduced

[edit]

I emptied the cat because the proper word for languages is attested not introduced. I thought I did put that in note somewhere.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon5685: I'm not convinced that "attested" applies to constructed languages.
@Swpb: for info, this is about https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category:Languages_introduced_in_1887&action=history . Just in case you do agree with the above, I could merge the decade hierarchy that you set up (Category:Languages by decade of introduction and the 7 decade categories) to the corresponding "attested" categories under WP:C2E, if you consent. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to just merge the "introduced" into the "attested" as that is the more precise term.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellerophon5685: as user:Swpb has not consented to merging the hierarchy that he created, feel free to propose a merger at WP:CFD, but please do not empty categories out-of-process. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Fayenatic said, I'm not convinced either that "attested" applies to constructed languages, given the typical meaning of the word. I'd be fine changing the tree to Category:Constructed languages by decade of introduction / Category:Constructed languages introduced in [the] XXXX['s] to make the distinction clear. —swpbT go beyond 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me this appears to be a Distinction without a difference - attested, if I understand correctly, is usually meant to mean "found" as in earliest sample or the first time it is identified by linguists. Conlangs are different because they can have a specific year when they were introduced by their founders. However, the number of conlangs being so small in comparison to "natural languages" would make creating a specific cat for them relatively small, and probably not enough for year introductions. It makes more sense to me to merge the two together in whatever is the most widely used term. I thought that was attested.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sold. I think there is a real difference. If you feel strongly about merging, you'll have to get consensus at CFD. —swpbT go beyond 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb: I think renaming to "constructed languages introduced..." would be helpful. Would you agree to merging the Category:Languages by year of introduction hierarchy to the decades and to the other parent e.g. Category:1839 introductions? The one-page categories look unlikely ever to be better populated. – Fayenatic London 23:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. keep Category:Languages by decade of introduction and its subcats, and merge the year cats to them, but keep them separate from the "attested" cats? Yes, that would be fine. —swpbT go beyond 14:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. @Swpb, Bellerophon5685, and J 1982: Given the consent above, I've moved this hierarchy to Category:Constructed languages by decade of introduction. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed category structure for Deuterocanonical books

[edit]

Please join Category talk:Deuterocanonical books. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I don't understand what you have written there. Please can you clarify it? – Fayenatic London 15:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: please also see Category talk:Hebrew Bible for precedent discussions. Categories that are just about the Protestant Old Testament, which is the same as the Jewish Tanakh, are now called Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament categories were retained as parents over Hebrew Bible and OT Apocrypha (which included deuterocanon).
I accept that there should have been more signposting to that discussion. Meanwhile, please would you revert your changes to the OT hierarchy? – Fayenatic London 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

– [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<font color="#FF0000">L</font>'''ondon]] → – Fayenatic London

to

– [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''<span style="color: #FF0000;">L</span>'''ondon]] → – Fayenatic London

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – done. – Fayenatic London 08:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works based on the Book of Esther has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Works based on the Book of Esther, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

Can you please delete the other subcategories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_13#English-language_albums? Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can do, but I'm still checking backlinks to the first one! This is a prime opportunity to blank some obsolete drafts. – Fayenatic London 19:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Commerce (Pakistan) & List of federal agencies of Pakistan

[edit]

Hey. I see you renamed the Ministry of Commerce and Textile Industry to just Ministry of Commerce, and also reflected such change on the page List of federal agencies of Pakistan. The website of the Government of Pakistan lists all its respective Ministries, and as you can see there is a single Ministry of Commerce and Textile Industry, with two divisions: Commerce Division and Textile Industry Division. So could you revert your changes? Thanks. --110.93.236.75 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me, and for providing a citation. I have moved the page back, as requested. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
k cool --110.93.236.75 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Testament apocrypha places has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Old Testament apocrypha places, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 18:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
For doing the heavy lifting to make those category links work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And thanks again Joeytje50 for WP:JWB which makes light of repetitive work! – Fayenatic London 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius the Mede

[edit]

Shouldn't that be under Hebrew Bible people instead of Words and Phrases? Editor2020 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I thought you had removed it on the grounds that the page name was English not Hebrew - sorry if I misread you. – Fayenatic London 23:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but Hebrew Bible people was removed by another user as a subcategory of Monarchs of the Hebrew Bible. Editor2020 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improper discussion

[edit]

You have closed and therefore participated in an improper discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#American track and field athletes by state. Why do I say it was improper? Because there was no notification placed on the categories affected. As a watcher of at least one of those and thus watching, I would have been notified. The creators of those categories would have been notified. This would have presumably brought them into the discussion. It certainly would have brought ME into the discussion had it not been conducted essentially in secrecy. The minimal discussion over the course of more than two months, only from high volume editors who live in the minutia of wikipedia back rooms, shows the lack of publicity of this discussion affecting so many categories. You didn't create this system, but you help validate this improper technique, created to achieve an outcome rather than a fair discussion. This system must get changed.

Overwhelmed, I still might have lost, but instead I and the other people who have so named the categories as a mirror of each other were excluded by the deliberate technique of NOT NOTIFYING THE AFFECTED ARTICLES or ASSOCIATED EDITORS. Locating @Sillyfolkboy:, @Le Deluge:, @Mayumashu:, @Aboutmovies: isn't that hard. Yes @Koavf: and @Hugo999: did participate.

The point I would have made is the entire discussion was about changing the word "people" with "athletes." The problem this created is that there are many coaches, meet directors, administrators and officials, to name a few, also included in those geographical based categories. Some also are athletes but not all of them achieved notoriety in that one role. And there are potentially more to be added who would fit such a situation, these categories are incomplete, as most are. Now some will be excluded because they are not known as athletes. Others look improperly included and are subject to some editor noticing that fact then ultimately removing them. I didn't get the chance to make that point. Trackinfo (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: From the closure reason I can see that there is still the opportunity to recreate the T&F people categories if there are sufficient non-athletes in that grouping (i.e. people category will contain administrators, coaches, business people etc, with athletes being a subcategory). I think the main intention of the discussion was to stop there being inconsistencies with some states having "people" categories and other ones having "athletes" categories, rather than making a judgement on whether one or the other was useful or not. All major American sports use that structure already. If you think there are enough non-athletes to make the "people" ones worth the while then feel free to create them, Category:Sport of athletics people would be a good place to start from SFB 18:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo: If the category pages were not tagged, I should have closed the discussion as "procedural close". However, they were indeed tagged, e.g. Arizona [2], Virginia [3]. Ten renamed categories and two retained categories have WikiProject Athletics banners on the talk page, and therefore appeared in that project's Alerts listing, see permalink and Archive. I know for a fact that 24 category pages were tagged, because they were the final contents of Category:Categories for discussion from September 2017 which became empty after I processed the close of that CFD.
CFD discussions can be closed after seven days. This one was open from September to December, so you had ample opportunity to notice it and participate. I'm sorry that you missed the edits to the pages on your watchlist and the Alerts, and that you did not receive a backup notification directly from the nominator; the latter is seen as good practice but is not a procedural requirement.
After closure, I set up Category:American track and field people by state or territory with the existing categories for Pennsylvania and Wyoming, which should make it easy for you or other interested editors to re-create any that are needed. Also, Black Falcon did take the trouble to list the members of the categories who are coaches. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo: I see that you have set up one more state category so far. Can I take it that you now accept that the closure was not improper? – Fayenatic London 11:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm used to the futility of these discussions. Other expected parties have been heard from, now. I am trying to move forward to correct the problems caused. I still believe it was done without proper notification. It doesn't matter how many months you leave an notice hidden in some obscure location, if you don't notify ALL the affected ARTICLES until it is too late, you have not given reasonable notice. That is a systematic problem beyond execution of this one CfD. Trackinfo (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you are no longer claiming that the category pages were not properly tagged. It has never been a requirement to tag any articles about a category, and it would usually be impractical to tag all of them, so your idea of reasonable notice does not overlap with mine. Best wishes for a calm Christmas and a reasonable new year! – Fayenatic London 22:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Retain

[edit]

It looks like one of this recent patch killed AWB on Windows XP. So it's unlikely I will be able to operate my bot any longer. (Unless I can find cost-efficient Windows 10 laptop.) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know, Armbrust. I manually processed the batches that had been listed there, and what I thought was sufficient of the talk pages.
Hope you come into possession of suitable hardware soon-ish. Best wishes for Christmas and a happy new year. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ordered one, and it will arrive probably next week. PS: Happy new year to you too. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Fayenatic london, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive18&oldid=1076655599"