Jump to content

User talk:Bencherlite/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians hoo kant spel 2 save there lyvz

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians hoo kant spel 2 save there lyvz 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 removed 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedias who get a thrill from seeing a Quint respond

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedias who get a thrill from seeing a Quint respond 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 removed 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedias for renewable energy

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedias for renewable energy 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 removed 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedias who believe Elon Musk is this century's Genius

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedias who believe Elon Musk is this century's Genius 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 removed 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, none of these categories have been empty for 7 days or more, because they were not empty when I created them just a couple ago (helping out at Special:WantedCategories, as you may have worked out). But I have no interest in them. Delete at will. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bencherlite
Great work creating them, and what a pain that they get emptied as soon as you have gone to the trouble.
The wording of automated notification doesn't seem to me to convey the meaning I have understood from {{db-c1}}, which is that deletion follows if the categ remains empty for 7 days after tagging. Sorry about that; it's the tool.
Anyway, if you are happy to have your creation deleted, then I will WP:G7 it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
PS to clarify the purpose of such categories, I have created Template:Idiosyncratic wikipedians category, which simply hardcodes the text I had added to some of them, which I think you had copied in some cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I'd spotted that on some of them now - good idea. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 11:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Warren Ault

I have recommended that this non-notable historian be deleted. Please read WP:NAUTHOR for guidance on how to improve this article, and avoid it being deleted. Morphenniel (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Morphenniel, thank you for that message, although a link to the article in question would have been helpful. I'm puzzled by your reliance on WP:NAUTHOR, since Ault was a history professor not a creative professional. Did you consider Wikipedia:Notability (academics), particularly WP:NACADEMIC? The list of criteria there includes "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research"? Ault was a named professor at Boston for many years. What about number 3 in the list of criteria, elected membership / fellowship of a distinguished scholarly society - his fellowship of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, perhaps? BencherliteTalk 12:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Khashoggi

Just seen you have removed the word "rare" from the After Dark section of Adnan Khashoggi on the grounds that this is unsourced. However ITN list this programme as his "only live tv appearance" -

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/Channel4/2004/01/01/T010104000000003/?s=delors

(which is the reference for the wikilinked section about the programme, so can be tracked back by anyone who clicks on the link). So to me the word "rare" is not only sourced, it seems rather understated in the circumstances. However given my potential WP:COI, I will leave this for you and whoever. Thanks. AnOpenMedium (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

AnOpenMedium, that source seems to be dated 1st January 2004, so isn't a source for anything that he may have done in the last 12 1/2 years. "Only live TV appearance" isn't the same as "rare TV appearance", since "only live TV appearance" obviously doesn't include non-live TV appearances, of which there could be plenty (I don't know). So that's two problems with saying that this was a "rare" appearance. There might be other sources out there that are more specific in supporting the comment of rarity, but not the two that have been produced so far. BencherliteTalk 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the clarification. AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Purney

Sorry about misreading the given name of Father Purney, but now what is it? The (older) score says Winfrid (and several other sources as well), while there are several sources for Winfred. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt While I don't have the score, I can't find any online sources at all for "Winfrid Purney" or "Winfred Purney", whereas there are sources for "Wilfred" e.g. Kevin Mayhew website, Westminster Choir School, the Radio Times of 1971, The Tablet in 1972, Musical Opinion 1974 etc. BencherliteTalk 16:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You are right, I missed it again, it's "Wilfrid" in the 1962 score. - How do I know a youtube is a copyright violation? - Thank you for the links to good sites to be included in Colin Mawby, with fond memories of 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The clue is what is not there - the music itself is under copyright, the recording itself is under (a different) copyright. If this was an official Chandos YouTube channel, fine; alternatively we need some indication that Chandos as copyright holder of the recording has given permission for it to be released in full for free on YouTube (which is unlikely, otherwise who would buy the recording?). YouTube is full of copyvios and "Bigwig 51" has given nothing to suggest that s/he has permission to put this recording on YouTube. See WP:ELNEVER. BencherliteTalk 17:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Understand, I rarely add YouTube, but liked their sound, - sorry. - Here's another Wilfrid, and not the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't see anything on that page (no preview of the text) and so have no way of seeing if the text itself - rather than Google - spells his name "Wilfrid". BencherliteTalk 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't indent to change from Wilfred (mentioned in established sources), just got curious how "Wilfrid" came into print. another + another. Should we write an article about him? Wilfred of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no interest in doing so. BencherliteTalk 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at AN.

Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Charmed, I'm sure. BencherliteTalk 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For the courage to close an ITN nomination which over half the editors opposed, and to explain your decision to keep it posted. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. (Can you second a barnstar?) I want to say thanks for your correct and necessary close and its perceptive analysis, and to say sorry for the undeserved flak you've received as a result. Who'd be an admin, eh?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both of you. It's ironic, as I noted earlier in the AN discussion, that I closed far more controversial discussions during my time as TFA coordinator without being dragged to AN and without there being a minor edit war about my close... BencherliteTalk 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Raqqa

Why did you remove the Battle of Raqqa from the ongoing events section in Wikipedia:in the news? The battle is not yet finished and probably won't be for another few weeks. I see you were also the one who removed the Battle of Mosul, a related ongoing battle, though that one is on the cusp of wrapping up in the coming days. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jackdude101, you obviously missed the discussion at WP:ITNC, where the consensus was that it was time to remove the Battle of Raqqa, and the earlier discussion where the consensus was that it was time to remove the Battle of Mosul. That I happened to be the admin closing both discussions is coincidence, just reflecting my activity at WP:ITNC. BencherliteTalk 09:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:UncleRuckusScott

Might want to revoke talk access here. Home Lander (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Done and deleted, thanks for the heads-up. BencherliteTalk 21:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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)

Montgomeryshire Architecture

Because nobody offered a reason not to use "Buildings and structures", and because that's clearly the naming convention, I've closed the "Montgomeryshire Architecture" CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 28) as "move to Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire". I've intentionally ignored the Powys-Montgomeryshire issue, since that's not so clear-cut, and I've started a new discussion specifically to address that issue. Please visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 17 (bottommost section) to offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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)

Consensus in article

Hello. Back in May, you protected this article List of awards and nominations received by Janet Jackson after a discussion regarding some (new) users inflating number of awards. I tried to make a consensus, only one user answered supporting my claim. I haven't edited anything in that article since then, but the awards keep being inflated. What to do? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Cornerstonepicker, I suggest that you have a look at the options discussed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. You might also want to look at similar lists that have reached featured list status and get ideas from their editor(s) - go to WP:FL, find some comparable lists, find who the primary author(s) are, then go to their talk page and invite them in a neutral way to the discussion. Good luck in reaching a consensus, whatever that is. BencherliteTalk 05:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I did all of that, the article is still a mess. No other WP users seem to care. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You've tried all of the steps in dispute resolution? I'm not sure I have anything else to suggest. BencherliteTalk 20:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

TRM

Storm, teacup. BencherliteTalk 20:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Bencherlite, just for the sake of clarity (and because the ANI thread has been closed), I have no idea on your views on TRM. I do recognise your name but I can't recall why – most probably, I've just seen you around at various times. My impression of the no block decision flowed solely from my surprise on clicking on the IP's contributions and not seeing a block, not from the fact that you were the one who did the reversion. As I said at the ANI, the reversion was absolutely correct (as I'm sure you know) and I was glad to see it was done, and quickly. I thought briefly of asking you about the block, but decided it wasn't worth the effort, then later saw the ANI thread and added a comment. I apologise for not asking you directly, it would have been more appropriate.

In my view, TRM has a tendency to take actions that are unwise at times, but has also been mistreated at times. My first impression on the IP not being blocked was that a block would have been placed for a similar edit to other long-established editors, which led me to the concern that it being TRM was the reason for no block. Whether that impression was fair or accurate (and I admit it may not have been), it is the thought that came to my mind. I have no reason to doubt the explanation that you offered at ANI, and I accept that your reason for not placing a block was your reasoning that it was not necessary. Unfortunately, I may not have been the only one to see the situation and form an erroneous impression.

I think, in the circumstances, that placing a block would have been appropriate, if only for the appearance of equal treatment in protecting TRM as any other editor compared to a war criminal responsible for the deliberate murder of millions. I hope you can accept that my post was not meant to reflect on your character or to place you as an "enemy" of TRM or anyone else; I merely meant to express surprise and concern, though I accept that I may have done so inelegantly. Thanks for reading this, and I hope that we have a beter understanding of the perspectives we each have. Kind Regrds, EdChem (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware that there have been many cases where a good editor with various unwelcome side effects is discussed at ANI? After numerous incidents and explanations that the unhelpful behavior has to stop, the community is often able to ensure there are no further problems. In other cases, however, the problematic behavior continues indefinitely. If enough disruption occurs, the editor is indeffed. After that, things spiral out of control with no way to recover. Those unfortunate results tend to arise when the good-but-problematic editor has wiki-friends ("enablers") who speak up for the editor, or who raise various not-quite-the-point issues that obscure the fundamental problem. The encouragement provided by enablers is what normally causes the problematic behavior to continue. What is needed is for everyone to focus on the underlying problem, with any side issues being raised at another place and another time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I don't think of myself as an "enabler" of TRM. I have posted to him asking him to reflect on how he expresses himself, most recently here where TRM's response showed to me that he saw my comments as unwelcome. I consider myself as able to see, and comment on, both TRM's positive contributions and unhelpful comments. Editors who will support wiki-friends no matter what they do are unhelpful, but I do not believe I belong to that category. In this ANI thread, the issue was blatantly untrue / unfair claims being made about TRM and admin action on these. I pointed out a blatant PA which was reverted by an admin (excellent, as it should be) but not followed with a block, which I thought was odd and potentially TRM being treated differently from other editors. My point was not a side issue, and the underlying problem of inconsistent admin action was very much on topic, in my view. The thread was not about TRM making unhelpful comments, and turning the ANI thread into that would not have been going to the underlying problem, it would have been diverting to a different topic which would have been highly inappropriate. EdChem (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mag & Nunc

I am looking around for Magnificat and Nunc dimittis, which should be an article, and all I find is List of English settings of Magnificats and Nunc dimittis, which has a lousy title (I hate "Magnificats and Requiems" as so un-Latin) and not much better content. I go for Howells' 1951 for St. Paul's, thoughts welcome, beginning with a title. Magnificat and Nunc dimittis for St Paul's is my first idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Herbert Howells, now you're talking! The list article is dreadful and I might well PROD it - if someone wanted to make a list of M&NDs, you wouldn't start from that. I'm not sure of the need for a composite article for Mag and Nunc because it would probably just end up repeating the relevant parts of the articles about the Mag and about the Nunc...
As for a title - that glorious setting is often simply known as the St Paul's Service e.g. [1], [2] but on checking the original copy at [3] I see that it's entitled "Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis for St Paul's Cathedral". BencherliteTalk 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It's in my sandbox, because I had to interrupt, travelling. You can also wait until it turns blue. There will be several redirects, eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It's started now. Much more in the refs, but not today. I have no idea how to link to it from the composer's article, where Mag & Nunc is mentioned once but he wrote 18. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I have somewhere at home some books about HH, which are likely to have some material about the St Paul's Service. A friend of mine belonged to a choir which visited York Minster and sung his York Minster setting of the M&ND, much to the embarrassment of the cathedral choir which had let it slip from their repertoire - something that they thereafter remedied, I'm told! BencherliteTalk 14:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ;) - The longish name is not common, I feel, but good for the moment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You say that, but I can't find any decent online sources that call it "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis for St Paul's" as opposed for "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis for St Paul's Cathedral". I'll see what the books say. Apols for the other_name/names) parameter issue - I saw that it wasn't displaying in the infobox, and didn't find the correct version of the parameter in the infobox's documentation. And you'll have seen that I've changed the image because of C:Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:RCMMuseum. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for image and expansion. Just returned from the Berlin Philharmonie, a first for me, Hindemith and Brahms with Gatti. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. BencherliteTalk 22:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup on the article I wrote about the Farrakhan court case. Teamwork is what this place is all about.

I am - believe it or not - not qualified in the field of Law. I noticed you corrected me saying that Khan "represented" Farrakhan. Did I use the completely wrong vocabulary there, did I imply that Khan was an NoI member who was appearing in the court in lieu of Farrakhan? Because that was completely not my intention, I was very careful over the whole DYK process not to resemble the smears that Khan ideologically agreed with any of his clients during his legal career.

Again, thanks Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's very unlikely that Khan represented Farrakhan, and if he did then such an extraordinary fact would need a watertight source. (He represented the NoI at an early review hearing, but that's not at all the same thing as representing an individual in the actual High Court case.) There are a (very) few solicitors who have the right of audience to represent clients in the High Court, but it's unlikely that Khan would have ever applied for it, and even less likely that someone would choose to be represented by a solicitor rather than by qualified counsel in a case this high-profile and sensitive. – iridescent 2 22:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No problem. An interesting case. I reworded it not because of that issue, but simply because [as Iridescent says] "represented" generally means that the lawyer was the advocate in court for the party in question, which Khan wasn't. In fact, I doubt he even would have represented Farrakhan at the initial hearing asking for permission to bring the judicial review (and there may not have been an oral hearing - a judge can give permission on the papers and list it for a full hearing; the judgments don't say either way). Hope that helps. BencherliteTalk 22:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you. I'm not a regular content creator but if I find another interesting legal case and write an article on it again I will take your advice on the correct vocabulary. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bencherlite/Archive_32&oldid=1142885952"