Jump to content

User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Another FYI

[edit]

I saw you reverted and left a warning for 175.103.25.137. See this diff and User talk:Dennis Brown#User:Scott Delaney? for additional info if you haven't seen it already. Thanks, Mojoworker (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hand of Ulster

[edit]

Might I request that the article remain blocked for another month? Eireabu has finally decided to respond the day before it is lifted however it seems clear by what they said that they intend to continue on as before regardless. I have asked they either do it in a sandbox version or post it at the talk but I feel this will not happen and will result in what will be a borderline edit-war as I have little faith in their ability to present evidence without many issues. Maybe a prolonged block will encourage them to properly discuss it. Mabuska (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not block the article for the actions of one person, however I also don't have a justification to enact an ban on them editing the article. At this point I don't see a definite intent to be disruptive so I'd say see how it goes for now. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they intend to be disruptive either, simply just ignorant of Wiki policies and guidelines. Mabuska (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

[edit]

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) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note 4

[edit]

There are no inbound links at Note 4. I'm thinking that turning that title into a disambiguation page makes sense. That would spare needing a hatnote on the Samsung Note 4 page. Does that sound reasonable? —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came here for something else.... I also briefly considered the same. While thinking on it, Canterbury reverted so I moved on. What kind of page views does Note 4 see? -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

Don't know if you're still watching Talk:Canada, but I'm on the fence whether the user's edit note on reverting the section would count against your warning to the editor. Editors shouldn't be referring to other editors by ethnicity in my view, but... -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah that definitely counts, however they did revert it just 2 minutes later so they're at least aware and as a result I'm also on the fence. I'll keep an eye on it, but one more comment like that and they're out of here, and not temporarily. Canterbury Tail talk 02:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that got a little crazy. -- ferret (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely clueless. Still doesn't get it. Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SM Entertainment (2001)

[edit]

I was never going to submit the article. I only made it as a projection of what SM article would've looked like on the day wikipedia launched (January 15, 2001.) I wasnt publishing in. it was a fan effort. At lleast let me screenshot it plz????-K-popguardian (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seriously?

[edit]

This is the source I have provided as a citation. https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/northern-ireland-politics-border-poll/

The citation says the following "A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North’s place in the UK at some point in the next five years."

It also references a border poll. 'Border poll' and "the Norths place in the Uk" can only mean one thing.

No that's your interpretation. The source does not equate border poll to united Ireland, and in fact at one point lists them as two separate items in "Arlene Foster and her party, the DUP, would not be in favour of a border poll or a united Ireland". To connect the two and reach that border poll and united Ireland poll is the same thing is your opinion and unless the source states that we can't have it on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the article. The "DUP, would not be in favour of a border poll or a united Ireland" does not mean the dup refers to them as different things. a border poll and an actual united ireland are obviously two diffrent things. How can you interpret that statement to mean the dup doesnt think a referendum on irish unity and a border poll is different? I cant help but suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse.

No I'm not interpreting the article at all, you are interpreting it. By interpreting it you're breaking WP:OR. Unless the source states what you're claiming it to you cannot use it to support a claim. See WP:OR, WP:Verifiable. Wikipedia is based on valid references, if the reference does not state the claim you are making then it's invalid. If you continue to re-add this OR material you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 11:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. You claimed the dup think a border poll and a unity referendum are the same. In what world is that not an interpretation?

No I didn't, I just stated that the page text states them as separate items. Anyway lets take this to the article talk page where it should be. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you interpreted the dup as saying they are separate things.

Nope, I just quoted the appropriate line in the article that lists them separately, applying an interpretation would be WP:OR. Anyway we're almost to your point with the other reference, see the talk page, but just need to connect a few dots. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is obviously an interpretation. see interpretation

Clear case of WP:SYN. If the source doesn't explicitly state it then we shouldn't. Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Sorry, I didn't see your final warning before placing a block on the user. I thought this was clearly an undisclosed paid editor, and the continued disruption was enough for preventative block. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry about it. I was very tempted to just block them outright myself but thought maybe I'll just give one warning and chance before indeffing them. I have no issues with you taking the step (and I'm actually surprised no one else did earlier.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)]] Hello Canterbury Tail[reply]

Can I apologise to you here? I realise I have upset several senior editors like you and others. I now realise I should have created a profile before I made any contributions (how could I have been so stupid) and that must have made me appear like some (or yet another) kind of crackpot/crank. Your naming convention advice was very helpful. I understand why starting a name with a bracket was a stupid suggestion on my part. I partially got the bad idea from seeing that format used on a map reference and the idea seemed originally like a possible good solution, I do understand why that was wrong. I am very new to this and I apologise for posting in the wrong place. I am trying to use a windows phone to do this and I genuinely don't think that warning banner came up. I have moved over to the correct place now to make suggestions (I think) I am trying to be polite but I see I have made some grave errors and breaches of etiquette. I am very sorry. I fully appreciate this is an emotive subject and you must have to deal with a lot of strange people. I hope in time that you will no longer regard me as one of them.

Thanks for your help and sorry

I love your user name very clever.

It's a part of the country I know well, having lived myself in Folkestone for 5 years.

Sorry

Eimhin

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]

speedy deletion contested

[edit]

I’ve contested your speedy deletion on the talk page of Klein (musician)—not sure how an artist can be considered non-notable when they’ve received lead reviews and features in no less than 5 major music publications. Get that fixed please. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archival from ANI noticeboard

[edit]

As I'm not neutral or an admin on this I'm somewhat inclined to do nothing, however given the archival from ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=803704596&oldid=803703625 with the only communication from subject being a scumming of myself (or anything) I somewhat feel someone has to do something .. e.g. final warning ... block ... attempt to re-engage. Doing absolutely nothing is a bad precedent as likely encourages bad community behavior. Not really sure how to raise this issue ... Thanks Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC). Comment: Our friend down a couple of edits one of which was useful. He has also begun posting images of a railway (with caption of Irish language signs) to some Ireland related threads e.g. Tipperary. I have undone that andissued a uw:fringe3 to hope to nip it in the bud without going back to ANI at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hippeas

[edit]

Hello,

This user asked for a renaming on meta, and as a global renamer I handled the request. This kind of request is indeed very common, as the new username follows the suggestion for such an old username which implies a shared use (the policy for example states "Mark at WidgetsUSA" as an acceptable username). Litlok (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. There was no criticism, I was just genuinely curious as to the process of how the request came through. Cheers. I've unblocked the user now as you point out the username is now allowed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: )

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: ). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner -- amendment

[edit]

Your concern:

rvin appropriate commentary and personal opinion. Unless other reliable sources are heavily discussing or referencing this it's not appropriate.

Material in question:

With respect to Battlestar Galactica, there are two incidental facts: 1) Edward James Olmos starred in both Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica. 2) The use of phrase "skin job, a pejorative term directed to those who were not born by way of natural conception, in Battlestar Galactica is an homage to Blade Runner.

First of all rvin, maybe you should try to limit use of phrases that might be difficult to understand. I suspect it means reversing, I was unable to find an answer on-line.

Second, part one of my statement is absolutely a statement of fact he was in both shows. As for part two, in Blade Runner, the first use of the phrase was by Captain Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh) to Deckard (Harrison Ford) "I've got four skin jobs walking the streets." I am sure that is easy to verify. The reason why it stood out to me was his very abrasive manner in conveying the statement. By the way he also said "Either your Blade Runner or your little people" (side-note).

As for the copyright violation, that maybe an overinterpretation on your part, "Hollywood" in general is only concerned with exhibition of full-length television shows and films. I was only concerned with the text, or the transcript, which I never passed off as my work. If anything at all, I am not interested in the whole script, I just want one phrase that illustrates my point. With respect to copyright law, I invoke the fair-use exception, and I included the transcript to prove my point that the phrase was used, and also for the sake of discussion. It was not merely my word that the phrase existed. The reason I chose the site in particular, is that the transcript had speaker identifiers (As in who said what to whom?)

MrX2077 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(removed link to a site containing copyrighted content.) "rvin appropriate" should have read "rv inappropriate" where rv is Wiki speak for revert.
Olmos being in both pieces of work is certainly true, but has no relevance to anything, it's a pure coincidence and he wasn't placed in BSG because he played Gaff in Blade Runner and they wanted a connection.
The reference to skin job is certainly there in both works as well, but it's only your opinion that it's A) relevant and B) related. Wikipedia doesn't work from your opinion and view on this, only on what reliable sources contain. For it to be notable and used on Wikipedia, reliable sources out there need to be making that connection and talking about it. Showing a script that says BSG uses the term is not important. Having say Forbes have an article where they draw a connection between the two and expose on its significance is relevant and notable. Everyone on Wikipedia needs to be notable and referenced.
As far as the copyright goes, that site you linked to contains copyrighted information. It is illegally hosting a script of the show without permission and its hosting of that material is far from fair use. Wikipedia copyright policy as per WP:COPYLINK is very clear on this, it cannot be done under any circumstances. And you cannot claim fair use of a site that is breaching copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the bottom of (copyright violating website removed)

Discuss this episode in the 'Battlestar Galactica Forum'


Attention Webmasters: If you insist on stealing these transcripts for your own website without contacting us first, at least have the decency to place a link on your site to sadgeezer.com. (You know who you are!)

A Special thanks goes out to Boomer and TWoP for their gracious assistance in prepating these transcripts.

Battlsestar Galactica names, characters and everything else associated with the series are the property of Sci-Fi Channel, NBC Universal and R&D Television.

Reasonable inference, the reason why the transcript exists, is so that it can be discussed, therefore fair use to carry the transcript for the purpose of commentary MrX2077 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Your linked to Linking to copyrighted works, I am specifically citing " Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." "discuss the episode" provides the context.

This comes under the same criteria as lyrics, it's a no no. Acknowledging who you're copying from doesn't eliminate the fact it's a copyright violation. If you wish to contest this it can be discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Additionally if you post a link to that copyright violating site again you'll be blocked for willing posting links to copyrighted material. Plus that site is a fan forum, not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear copyright violation. And even if it were not, the source appears to be user-generated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to BladeRunner talk page

[edit]

Blade Runner Transcript

MrX2077 (talk) 21:49, 19 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]

ROTJ

[edit]

Just letting you know I've already requested page protection, hoping it will retain the status quo until the discussion is concluded. Please feel free to protect it sooner if you see any more disruptive activity. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of cited sources

[edit]

Hello, I have a question on your last edit of this page. I had undone your edit because you were referencing only indirect sources. It was "other people" saying what you had written, not the person who is supposed to confirm (only Rooney Mara herself can know if she is in a relationship or not). Luckily she was directly asked in a publicly available interview (which I had linked, this one) and she did not confirm (nor deny) the relationship. So my issue was about authority of sources. I thought a newspaper quoting Rooney Mara was more authoritative than 2 newspapers quoting gossip and rumours. I have read the material you linked and I don't have any conflict of interest but I am surprised that gossip and rumours are being taken as truth when the person involved has been asked about the issue and has not confirmed. My point is that these are rumours until she confirms. If I had a page I wouldn't want to see gossip written in my page about me that I have never confirmed stated as truth. Perhaps it can be rephrased in the following way: "There have been reports that [...]. However the actress has never confirmed nor denied these claims [1].", or something like that. What do you think? Thanks. Breryl (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People and New York Times are considered reliable sources. The Vogue source you cite doesn't confirm or deny and therefore can't be used to support the postive, whereas the sources already in the article can be used to support it. The Vogue article in no way contradicts what's in the article already and doesn't give any reason that the other sources aren't correct. Wikipedia is all about verifiability not truth. If there are reliable references to support something then that's fine unless there are contractictory reliable references. In this case there are verifiable references for, and no verifiable references against, even that Vogue article does nothing to contradict them. Unless there is a solid reliable source that she actively denies the relationship, then the verifiability is where it stands. Canterbury Tail talk 23:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is very helpful and clarifies the issue perfectly for me. I would be grateful if you did not delete this conversation so I could have it here for future reference. Breryl (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor old Willie...

[edit]

I'm getting the feeling Willie Frazer may need semi-protection or something soon going by recent IP edits over the past week. Mabuska (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Henderson

[edit]

I saw you made a change to the lead of this article [2] and just wanted to check if there is any guidance for using "x from Northern Ireland" instead of "Irish x"? I had a look at MOS:IRELAND but that didn't seem to cover it. I only ask as "Irish rugby player" (with Irish piped to the island of Ireland article) seems to be the usage on all the articles I checked for current players born in Northern Ireland that have played for the Ireland national team, which was the reason I went with that format. Rugger80 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. According to MOS:OPENPARA a biography should include the subject's nationality or country. Since he was born in Northern Ireland it should state Northern Ireland, and not link to Ireland as represents a landmass (an island) not a country. Since we don't know for sure their nationality, and since they're born in the UK they are British with the option of adding Irish, the nationality gets very messy very quickly unless very well sourced. As a result it's become, while not policy, standard to refer to someone born in Northern Ireland just as from Northern Ireland rather than trying to get into the incredibly complex and confusing nationality business. Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, helpful to understand that the lead needs to refer to nationality or location, rather than representation. Rugger80 (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, anytime. Oh and the lede can still refer to their representation, just it's separate from the nationality/location point. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 23 November 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, Canterbury Tail. 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]

[edit]

Hi, are there any suggestions you can offer about linking to panoramic images of a building (e.g. Canterbury Cathedral) in the External links section? Should the format be more specific, or is the content itself not something that should be linked?

128.59.230.32 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links you are adding appear to be in the spirit of the external links policy and not for promotional purposes. Perhaps Canterbury Tail got a bit carried away? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should I leave off the website's title from the link to make sure there's no impression of promotion? 128.59.230.32 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do that, but you might want to expand your edit summary from "added link" to something like "added link to Columbia University's Art Atlas project images".--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for the advice! 128.59.230.32 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the images aren't adding a whole lot on top of what someone can find on Streetview or the like. And the fact that an IP allocated to Columbia university is hitting dozens of pages with links to Columbia university makes it seem like it's trying to promote that service. At the very least there's a strong COI in place. However if others think it's fine then fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Andrews

[edit]

Not sure where you can find the entire interview of Steward John "Jack" Stewart but part of it is reprinted in the book "Thomas Andrews: Shipbuilder" by Shan Bullock. You can also find more information on this account in "On a Sea of Glass" by Tad Fitch et. al. In the latter book the authors do a wonderful job of piecing together survivor accounts to ascertain Andrews last location. They conclude that Andrews was likely seen by Stewart in the smoking room at around 1:40am and that he left that location and did what he had been doing all throughout the evacuation, helping people get off the ship. He eventually made his way to the bridge where he was seen with Captain Smith just before the ship took the final plunge. This is supported by the account of Steward Cecil William N. Fitzpatrick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.33 (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Holding Page

[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to update the Dubai Holding page, as the information is incorrect. I have updated other pages without any issues, however, I can see that you're flagging the page for copyrighted materials. I was hoping that you could provide some help with this, as I'm not really sure which part you are flagging, as even the introduction has been reverted. Currently, this information is incorrect, such as the chair people, revenue, etc. and this information that I changed it to is factually correct, and I did reference it. I'd really appreciate to understand these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelica86 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 26 December 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:Canterbury Tail|<font color="Blue">'''Canterbury Tail'''</font>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] : Canterbury Tail talk

to

[[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] : Canterbury Tail talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scrappy Blumer

[edit]

Hello, This message is for Canterbury Tail. I'm responding to you reversing the edits I made on Scrappy Blumer's page. First I would like to apologize if I was sloppy in any way or didn't follow protocols. I am a novice at editing on Wikipedia. My name is Laurence BuckShot Blumer. I am the son and only child of Laurence "Scrappy" Blumer. I notice several inaccuracies in my father's profile and just wanted to help Wikipedia correct a few to as accurate as possible. It is a common misconception on the internet to people who don't do their due diligence, mindlessly regurgitat falsehoods and don't know any better but my father left the Army Air Corps a Major. Also The order of the Winged Boot and The Caterpillar Club are very Notable Awards to the People who are aware and were members. Both awards were wore on my father's uniform for being shot down behind enemy lines, evading capture by the Nazi's and making it back to friendly territory on foot. On my edit of the bar fight my father was involved in with the Marines. I grew up hearing this story countless times from my father as well as other members of the 367th fighter group. Never have I heard it told as two marines. The story was All ways told like it involved several people. I realize that the reference for the story came from a nice article on my Dad by a gentleman named Curt Eriksmoen. I also realize articles like that are written by interviewing the source of the material or people closest to the source with genuine knowledge of what is being written about. People like me. The 367th fighter group had reunions every year. I grew up going to those reunions. My dad's buddy's would call me the youngest member of the 367th fighter group. Everything I say can be backed up with real proof. All my father's war records and memorivial I have. So much on the internet is false. I know and appreciate your doing your best to correct that. Just be aware on rare occasion some of those non notable people you reference are more informed on certain topics than yourself. It falls to me to correct the record when people try to misrepresent the facts and deflate the sacrifice, bravery and incredible heroism of my father and the men of the 367th fighter group. I hope one day in the near future to have an accurate, true and complete book for Wikipedia to reference. There is so much more tell. GODSpeed in your Efforts for Truth and Accuracy. Thanks for your time. 

Team Blumer (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to be aware of is that Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. The details you add need to be verifiable and have provided references. The references all provided in the article support him only achieving the rank of Captain and of the fight being against two marines. Unless you can provide reliable sources to back up otherwise then they will need to remain as is. Unfortunately we're not about what people know but what can be proven and referenced by other people. You being told a story cannot be used on Wikipedia to support anything as you are not a reliable references (plus memory is one of the most fragile things we as humans have, it's not accurate.) You'd need an independent third party reference to back those up. Canterbury Tail talk 13:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that, thanks for your reply. I have a Tremendous amount of proof in the form of video/audio interviews my father conducted, books he is in, comic from Clayton Knight he is featured, thousands of pictures, his daily diary from the war as well as his official miliatry records. Unfortunately people don't put in the effort when writing and verifying this stuff other than copy and paste. I realize for many people writing these articles it's difficult to have access to people like me that have such a large amount of verifiable proof of the heroic service and sacrifice of my father but how hard is it to verify he was a Major? Just check the Military Records. Put in some effort somebody. It's a disservice to someone who sacrificed so much. Again, Thank you for your reply. I hope Wikipedia can accurate in the future. Team Blumer (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'll help you fulfill your mission to make Wikipedia more accurate. Go to the department of veterans affairs. Then go to gravesite locator. Type in Lawrence Blumer and this will come up. BLUMER, LAWRENCE E  MAJ   US ARMY AIR CORPSWORLD WAR IIDATE OF BIRTH: 05/31/1917DATE OF DEATH: 10/23/1997BURIED AT:WOODBINE CEMETERYCITY OF PUYALLUP 218 WEST PIONEER PUYALLUP, WA 98371(206) 841-5459. Just one way of many to verify he was a Major. So please help make Wikipedia more accurate by correcting your inaccurate editing of my father's profile and promote him back to his actual rank of Major, Thank you. 

Team Blumer (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connective Trivia

[edit]

Sloug Feg Traveller album was influenced by the game by GDW, and not the other way around. Unregistered user has inadvertently introduced connected trivia to a primary article which is incorrect. User: 89.129.133.32 ‎ 18:29, 16 January 2018‎. The proper approach has already been effected under the heavy metal band’s primary article as well as the secondary album article. Big-Tachi (talk) 4:31, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Hello Canterbury Tail, I thought you might be interested in these results. I'm currently looking in ranges for a different case and happened upon these which are unrelated to what I'm doing.
  • Traveller-Onlooker is the oldest and would be the master. You may want to file an SPI whether you are involved or not (I haven't looked about that). I trust that you will know what to do. Back to the ranges...Cheers,
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know I’ve had some suspicions about those accounts in the past myself. Not sure as I think they’ve reverted each other a couple of times but I’d need to check. But yes I do suspect there is something going on with them, at minimum a COI somewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear but that seems to be one person using the same device on the same IP. I ran a checkuser and they are  Technically indistinguishable.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and filed here. Good to have the record.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was going to sort that out when I'm at home later this afternoon. But thanks for taking the initiative, and cheers for letting me know. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Brooke (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Oswald BrookeOswald Brooke (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your help. Apologies for the incorrect editing. I have redone the changes and added notes to the same piece[reply]

Oswald Brooke (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Oswald BrookeOswald Brooke (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC) There are alot of references to people in any article who do not have their own Wikipedia page. I believe that the people I added / corrected are very valid to the town. One of them was already listed though incorrectly linked and now you have removed him! Please explain? Thank you[reply]

Stop following my edit

[edit]
Stop icon

If you continue to follow my edits I am reporting you. You have recently edited numerous articles directly after I have which you have never edited in the past. Please read WP:FOLLOWING and WP:HARASS. If you continue to stalk my edits you will be reported and banned from editing yet again. Given your numerous bans you should know better, grow up please. Saboteurest (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have many articles that each edit or at least is in the same sphere of interest. I do keep noticing your name crop on my articles watchlists yes and I have checked and taken a quick look at your edit history in the past due to questionable edits and the fact that you were reported (and blocked) on the Administrator's Noticeboard for, incidentally, harassing other users and making retaliatory edits. There seems to be an issue with you accusing other editors of vandalism, which I am indeed keeping an eye on, when they are looking for proper references which suggests you're not fully aware of Wikipedias WP:REFERENCE policies. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not entirely certain what you're talking about my numerous bans. Please explain this accusation or withdraw it for making threats and false allegations. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to follow my edits you will be banned from edit AGAIN, plain and simple. Stop. Saboteurest (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? I've never been banned or blocked before.Provide evidence that I've been blocked or banned before or remove the accusation under WP:NPA. Canterbury Tail talk 16:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Dornan

[edit]

I hope things get resolved at the Jamie Dornan article. I'm going to depart that discussion however, as I'm not interested in being attacked or baited, by others. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Saboteurest (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Admin abuse and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saboteurest (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the ANI thread as no action and suggested Saboteurest should try leaving a polite message next time. In the meantime, may I suggest avoiding him or at least deferring any admin actions to somebody else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only just logged in and saw the thread. I can explain every single action, but the thread is closed now. I shall defer to other admins any administrative action, intersection of edits I cannot as they edit in many similar spaces to myself (hence why often it seemed to them like they were being stalked.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my main motivation for closing the thread is that it had gone massively off-topic, complaining about the merits of escalating the thread to Arbcom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An apology to you

[edit]

Hello Canterbury Tail. I posted a comment at your recent arbitration thingy link , I was trigger happy to comment from memory, I was nudged to post a link and so retracted the comment. When I had time to look back for the link I found it was not you at all, I am sorry for posting that, I won't post again without checking for the link, best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, it's fine. Let's move on. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined

[edit]

The request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined by the committee. GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
:D Yeungkahchun (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sean Downey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dromore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITSTRUCT is not a guideline adopted for Australia

[edit]

I noticed your edit summary on Beaudesert, Queensland and thought I should mention this. Kerry (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, and yes fair enough. Never noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your motivations and contributions. Strongbolt66 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of personal talk page

[edit]

Hey. What can I do if an IP user, who uses multiple IPs, keeps restoring comments and harassing me on my talk page? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could always do a semi-protection on your talk page for a month if you like. Canterbury Tail talk 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful for now. Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Let me know if there are any other issues. If you think it could be a problem I could put a permanent semi-protect on your archive pages as well in case they try targeting there. Canterbury Tail talk 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will keep an eye on it and inform you if any problems arise. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Happy to help. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Can you take a look on my talk page? Some new IP user wrote an accusation on my talk page, but it did not make any edits as of now. I believe that might be tied to the most recent protection of my talk page when IP users started harassing me. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masters spammer

[edit]

Thanks for your help. Buy, as you saw, that spammer(s) only made a new account and started spamming immediately again. Can you check to see if it's the same IP address, please? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, I don't have check user priviledges. However I'd imagine it definitely is. We have 2 choices. Get the URL blacklisted or semi-protect the articles for a bit. Since they're current articles I don't think protecting them is the answer. Canterbury Tail talk 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then

[edit]

I am Apollo The Logician. Just go on there and block me. I will save you the trouble of an SPI.James blythe (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! He called this libel. Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to ask for a CU anyway. There's probably other socks about. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scolaire: Just Luke Dillon the dynamiter. I will be back anyway as you well know!!James blythe (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you waste your time. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tokyo Midtown, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Minato and Akasaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of museums in Tokyo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akasaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Just a notice that I reported Internet Informant at AIV after they've continued to add categories unsupported by article content even after claiming that they would desist in making such edits. Not sure what their issue is, but I'm hopeful this won't require a full ANI case. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New report of the problematic user

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to know your opinion about a new report to the user Wddan who was involved in a discussion with you last month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#The_problematic_behaviour_of_this_user

Old discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=838673865#FrankCesco26,_umpteenth_wave_of_disruptive_POV_edits

Thank you. FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy WikiBirthday

[edit]
Hey, Canterbury Tail. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] 
Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy WikiBirthday

[edit]
Hey, Canterbury Tail. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] 
Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit Day

[edit]
Hey, Canterbury Tail. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] 
Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found that you deleted a Page named Siddhi Khankal. Was there any specific reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa015 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a redirect to a draft page. A mainspace page shouldn't redirect to draft space. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Derry.

[edit]

Londonderry is the correct name

[edit]

New York is commonly known as The Big Apple but does that mean it should be called that on Wiki? Of course not the only issue here is the huge bias that Wikipedia has towards both Irish nationalist and Roman Catholics. Wikipedia has become a joke because anyone of any credible talent is labelled 'Irish' for no reason look at the numerous actors who are British that get called Irish on here. And in the real world EVERYONE isn't Catholic. And every person on the planet according to Wikipedia is of Irish decent. Even when evidence says Northern Irish or English and Scottish, Irish is always thrown into the mix with no credible references. This is why I won't donate to Wikipedia because it has become a very biased unsound source of information. I love how the Irish Internet Mob have basically bullied Wiki editors by >>>constant changes and revisions to the point they just give up and leave misinformation such as Derry. I am sure a lot of people of Dutch ancestry would claim New York by its former name New Amsterdam but that kind of thing would never happen because the Americans would not allow it, yet on here Irish editors get far more leverage than anyone else. 86.15.128.219 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is me engaging with you. I'd ask that this section be removed for bigoted comments against Nationalists in Northern Ireland and the Irish people in general. Seeing as you just removed my comment for decrying this piece, while leaving the bigotry and attacks herein intact, you've got an argument for it. Shall we remove it or leave it in?

Gone. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against Irish identity

[edit]

As someone who I doubt is even from Ireland or Northern Ireland, you seem intent on relinquishing the irish identity claimed by many from Northern Ireland. For example, Martina Anderson is perhaps one of the most prominent Irish republicans, yet you attempted to change her biography to a more ‘neutral’ one despite her being the very opposite of neutral in terms of her identity. Furthermore your arguments for doing so don’t seem to fit together, for example you changed Jamie Dornan’s article to not include his irish identity because there was no proof of his citizenship, yet you cite no such reason for doing the same with Martina Sanderson (of whom there is a plethora of evidence of her Irish citizenship). So I ask, why the bias? Mr Serious Guy (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what bias? It’s commonly accepted on Wikipedia that a from Northern Ireland is considered a neutral way to refer to people from Northern Ireland. Unless there is a reference that people are Irish or British then they shouldn’t be referred to as such. If it’s so clear that Martina Anderson is Irish then it shouldn’t be hard to provide such a reference. Canterbury Tail talk 02:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a plethora of information commonly known on Wikipedia that does not need a citation, for example if somebody is dead, their birth and death dates in their opening paragraph does not necessarily need a citation. Similarly, because many prominent Irish people from NI have been so vocal about their identity, I believe that they do not need a citation for their own nationality. --Mr Serious Guy (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know these people, so without a citation I have no idea what they've been vocal about or what identity they claim. Anything on Wikipedia should be referencable. Canterbury Tail talk 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't know who you're editing an article about, then you should probably leave it to the users who have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject at hand and know many references in relation to the person. --Mr Serious Guy (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and unreferenced material can be challenged and altered at any time. Anything in mainspace needs to be capable of being supported by references as stated and needs to be accurate, if that can't be supplied immediately it's perfectly acceptable to make it accurate and non-controversial until such references can be supplied. In fact it's encouraged. Oh and by the way, the same happens to people from Northern Ireland that states British without references despite the fact that that is less controversial since they were born in the UK and therefore British by birth. In the case of neutrality they too get altered until references can be supplied. This is regular practice. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of immediately changing a key part of the introduction of an article because of a lack of citation, you insert a 'citation needed' instead until one can be supplied? Is that not common practice? --Mr Serious Guy (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In many articles yes, but for a potentially contentious issue on a BLP, no. Canterbury Tail talk 01:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: American Unitarian Conference

[edit]

Hello Canterbury Tail. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of American Unitarian Conference, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previous PROD was contested by good faith experienced editor, so it might be controversial. Use WP:AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy 09:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About American Unitarian Conference speedy deletion

[edit]

Hi Canterbury Tail,
Whilom, as olde stories tellen us, or in this case this 2001 article in the Washington Post, it appears there may be two religious organisations of this name: the former American Unitarian Association, and the current organization of this name.
While Articles for deletion is not for clean-up, I must admit I am considering declining your speedy deletion and sending it it to WP:AFD. Doing just that what not for clean-up says not to do.
What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look into it in more detail. I must say I was unsure about tagging it in the first place, but even that source doesn't really suggest that this organization is notable. On a quick look through other search results I can't see anything really that denotes that notability, it just appears to be a small organization that had a lawsuit and is using the name of an older organization. No claims to significance in the article, and none that I could see on their own webpage. So not entirely sure. It apparently was prodded before, so speedy is ineligible anyway, but I am considering it still is not notable and I shall probably take it to AfD after looking into it a little more. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Progress

[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you were one of the users listed on the RolePlaying Game WikiProject. I was hoping to contribute to it by publishing an article on the Weaverdice RPG Setting. There was some debate inside of the community whether or not this article would qualify under the notability rule for wikipedia, so I was wondering if I could get some level of confirmation that if published it would qualify as notable. I'm fairly certain it does due to the fact it exists, has a fanbase of over 100, has existed several years, and is published by the individual who actually owns the intellectual property to it, but I felt some level of confirmation would be nice just to play it safe.

Have a wonderful day. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For something to be notable it must receive notable third party coverage. I must say, despite being well versed in role-playing games, and having been published for many, I'd never heard of it. For it to be notable it must pass WP:NOTABILITY, which I see no evidence that it does. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial topic ban proposal at ANI

[edit]

You should sign your comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! So sorry. Thank you for pointing that out. Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

[edit]

It's just "vandalism", not "nationalist vandalism." The vast majority of nationalists don't care enough to edit the page, let alone vandalise it... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


What is Canadian

[edit]

Please discuss.

Colonization of Mars

[edit]

The post you removed from Colonization of Mars had been there for an entire month. An anonymous person removed it, and then when I put it back, people thought I was adding something new. You came over to this page to remove it and have now blocked the whole page. Totally wrong and uncalled for to delete that text. You’re the only person taking these drastic steps and you don’t even know that it had already been on the page and accepted by multiple editors. An anonymous user deleted it and I only put it back. Your removal is totally uncalled for. The post had already been a part of the page. It was not removed by an editor! I tried to add it to “Manned Mission to Mars” as well, where it didn’t really belong, because it had been deleted from the Colonization Page. I shouldn’t have done that. Please put it back on the Colonization Page. This is a misunderstanding. It had already been approved. It was not removed by an editor, and I was adding it back from an anonymous user’s deletion. Thank you,

kylem145 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C44B:D550:3871:28C7:39DA:6AC0 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No that just drew attention to the fact that a very poorly written, unsourced, opinion piece had been inserted into the article and other editors hadn't caught it. Just because it was there doesn't mean it was acceptable or approved. Additionally you edit warred against at least 5 different editors, not just myself, to reinsert it all of whom didn't think it was appropriate. So no it's not being re-added and the page isn't being unprotected.
Additionally thank you for signing it as seemingly the name of a group of blocked users, this raises suspicion over your edits as it looks like you're evading as a blocked user. Canterbury Tail talk 00:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s not inappropriate, and multiple editors made small changes to it such as adding hyperlinks, disambiguation requests on ‘trillions’, etc. and had accepted it and thought it was appropriate. It’s not poorly written and it’s relavant. You’re the only one actually blocking the page and you’re the only one that may have been edit warred with by definition, they may have changed it once but then they stopped, you’re the one that continued to revert it. It had not only been there for a month, but had been read, noticed and edited by other editors. You’re the one removing it. Any block on the Colonization Page was unjustly done. Please revert the text. I will make higher level complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C40B:FF5F:F8E5:656A:48A1:75A9 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve read other posts on your talk page, you do this sort of thing often, and use circular reasoning a lot. It should be on the Col of Mars page. You just removed an important item from the page (Col of Mars) without even thinking about it. E.g. at one point on your talk page you interpreted a source one way, another person interpreted a source another way, then you said he was breaking the rules by interpreting it. Lol. Great logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C40B:FF5F:F8E5:656A:48A1:75A9 (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um no you're clearly the one edit warring. You reverted people's removal of that paragraph 6 times in a 24 hour period, the history doesn't lie. At least 5 editors, all long standing, disagreed with your continual reinsertion. I also note that other administrators are continually blocking your IP addresses due you you being a block evading editor. As a result even if your points did have merit you'd still be reverted based on that. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We’re talking about the Colonization of Mars Page, that other stuff is irrelevant. We’re talking about text that should be on the page. You’ve ruined it. It did have merit, my argument had merit, and claiming the other editors thought these things is hearsay. If they did think it, it was only after one guy removed it. It was just fine. I don’t think they said or thought what you’re saying, they removed it because they thought it was new. You’re the only one that actually blocked the page and removed it multiple times. It is important to the page and relavent. You just have power, no actual truth or argument, and you’re using that really badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.4.16 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonization of Mars page where you reverted other editors where you reverted 5 different editors (not counting the original removal)? I think you're the one prescribing motive to other editors. You were reverted, multiple times, but decided to continue edit warring instead of taking it to the talk page. End of story. Page was protected due to your edit warring. Unfortunately you now fall into the category of a block evading edit warrior and as a result you will continue to be blocked and your edits reverted. If you want to be taken seriously, use the talk page instead of edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 10:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Shield

[edit]

Hi, I declined a CSD G11 on this article, because the first edit was a redirect to Permethrin and CSDs can only apply if every single revision in the article meets the criteria. That said, the article was bit puffy, so I've trimmed it down to basic facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bangor

[edit]

Hi Canterbury Tail. Re Bangor. What was currently in external links was as a website in Chinese called Bangor-Local.com or something. And what the hell is this: https://web.archive.org/web/20080210010402/http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/town_Home.aspx?co=7&to=129&ca=0&sca=0&navID=1

The Bangor NI site is no more than 1-month old and already it has more comprehensive and 10 times better imagery than any website, including many run by local govt. agencies, such as https://www.bangorni.com/north-down-coastal-path-bangor-to-holywood/. Did you even look at anything within the website? Check out the links below as again they are more comprehensive (and engaging) than the actual North Down Museum Website. Written by a former Alderman and Mayor and current member of the Historical Society and many more local heritage societies in Bangor.

https://www.bangorni.com/history-of-bangor-northern-ireland/ https://www.bangorni.com/bangor-museum-down-northern-ireland/

The website is also getting a lot of praise from local groups such as FABB who are kind of pissed with the lack of tourist info online for the town. Anyway, I have no problem with my site not being included to this list. But I suggest removing the shite that continues to be in the article before being a ginormous non-notable twat.

Best Regards,

Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanmwilson (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP-hopping sock

[edit]

Hi there, from Portugal,

regarding this (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.154.46.64), this other address (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.155.160.5). From what i've heard, this person has quite the history...

Glad to help, happy editing --Quite A Character (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About whether the British Isles can be considered geographically Northern European or not

[edit]

I'd argue they can, since they are parallel to Denmark, southern Sweden and the Baltics, and the east side of the UK is completely on the North Sea, so I would say they are Northern European geographically. The UN actually does include them in Northern Europe, as do some other maps of the regions of Europe.Vesperius (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can provide a source that's fine. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of mountains in Ireland

[edit]

Hi Canterbury Tail. Notice you reverted changes I made in the Lists of mountains in Ireland article from Britain and Ireland to the British Isles. I started with the British Isles (having overhauled this article, plus the main Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles), but was noted by other Irish editors that Britain and Ireland is a preferred term in Ireland (see Terminology of the British Isles). I was happy to do this and I think it avoids instability in the article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that's not entirely true. Firstly British Isles does not equate to Britain and Ireland, they don't cover the same area and are not equatable (see British Isles.) Secondly all references in the article are to British Isles, links to British Isles and lots of mentions of how mountains are graded based standards covering the British Isles. For instance Britain and Ireland doesn't cover the Isles of Man, non-mainland islands, Isles of Wight etc. I don't care terribly much what term is used, but if we use a term it should be logical, accurate and consistent. Phrases like tallest Irish mountains in Britain and Ireland makes no sense compared to tallest Irish mountains in the British Isles for example. On Wikipedia the term British Isles is "generally" preferred as the more accurate term. It does get very complicated but there is a vocal contingent of editors who have politicised the term and try to spin it as a political term not a purely geographical term that even the Irish government does use, despite some claims to the contrary, as a purely geographic term. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My God, there is even a whole Wikipedia article on this British Isles naming dispute! I do believe that the Irish Government's official position is not to use the term the British Isles (see this article from an Irish paper on the Irish State's position: [3]). I do think that a sensitive approach it of merit here, as it is a core page for all Irish mountains, and not sure the purely geographical argument is accepted on the Irish side. My desire is the stability of the article, and to be fair to all sides in what is an issue that is not purely about geographical logic. Britishfinance (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, we should probably move this discussion to the Talk Page of the article for future reference? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to which article you want to continue discussion on, Britishfinance, but do please note that an (admittedly vocal) minority of Irish editors disputing the existence of the geographical term "British Isles" does not represent all Irish editors - far from it. It's a useful and logical term, once used correctly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purely on the List of mountains in Ireland article. I have already had edits from IP-editors changing the British Isles to Britain and Ireland (even on the mainly British Isles mountain articles). I understand there are sensitivities here (didn't realise that there is a whole Wiki on it) and was happy to accommodate on the Irish-focused articles for stability; perhaps there should be a WP policy on this? It would at least give a firm footing either way? (or maybe one already exists?). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Canterbury Tail. 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)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Europe

[edit]

The problem seems to be more deep-seated than your recent IP-editor revert. If you compare this diff with the current page, you'll see that below '1 Blackfriars' several entries have been deleted and several others added. It might be an idea to rv all the way back to that edit by User:BenBezuidenhout as last good version. I tried to work out what had happened with the possibility of manual fixing in mind, but couldn't make head nor tail of it. (I could have Twinkled all the way back to that diff myself; but as you have had recent involvement with the page, and also might wish to take a look at User:Annysta's activities, it seemed preferable to involve you than to risk making a bad situation worse.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) to[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

What items have I uploaded lately that are copyrighted by others? I made two illustrations for the Star Wars Roleplaying Game that I made myself using Roxio 2012. Hotspur23 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made two uploads that very clearly said "Copyright 2012 Fantasy Flight Games" or "Copyright 2011 Fantasy Flight Games" right in the image. They even had the copyright in the filename, for example "File:FFG StarWarsRPG(c2011) DICE+GUIDE.jpg". Most definitely not made yourself and a blatant copyright violation. Cutting and snipping an image isn't making them yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also not sure how using DVD ripping and buring software is some way of evading copyright issues. That suggests that you took a screengrab out of a video and uploaded it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the FFG copyright notice and FFG logo on the files. I named them. There are three Star Wars Games (WEG, WotC, and FFG) and I wanted users to know which version it was. The only part I didn't fabricate myself were the dice symbols, which I had to copy. The game system uses pictographic dice and their symbols are unique. I believe it is under fair use. As for the Difficulty chart, I hand-made the purple d8 symbols and the text. Even the STAR WARS logos were made from fontware. Hotspur23 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. However when you add a copyright notice to something that means you're giving them the copyright. This means that it would be removed from Wikipedia if not by myself then by others as they would have no way of telling. This may fall into a gray area, but I'm not actually a copyright expert. I'd suggest you should contact the user Diannaa (talk · contribs) if you wish to re-upload them, she is one of our resident copyright experts and she'll be able to tell you if that is fair use or not. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the image(s) because I am not a Commons administrator. So I can only talk in general terms. Copying a copyright work does not make the copyright go away; you can't draw a copy of something and pretend it's an original work to which you own the copyright. You don't. So for example you can't draw a picture of Spongebob and pretend it's a new work to which you own the copyright, because the original creator holds the copyright and you've copied their work without their permission. The Commons does not accept fair use images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

[edit]
Happy Christmas!
Hello Canterbury Tail,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas socks

[edit]

Hi Canterbury Tail, I just wanted to get your opinion about some edits by apparent Ufufcguc/Nbmmplo socks today, if you have a moment. The odd thing is that the first IP, 83.30.178.87, edits between 13:13 and 20:17, but during that time three other IPs, on the same network and geolocation, also edit. They are reinstating or interacting with the same material in the same articles. If it's one person on a dynamic IP, I don't get how they can come back to the first IP again. Meatpuppets? I reverted the ones that were obvious reinstatements, but I'm not sure what to do in the Cohesion (computer science) article. Any ideas about what might be going on here? Maybe they're up to some more serious trolling than I thought?

  • Special:Contributions/83.30.178.87 - edits 13:13 to 15:16, last edit was to Das Erste, I reverted them all.
  • Special:Contributions/83.30.23.208 - 15:31, makes a single edit to unrelated article Cohesion (computer science), removing a code example, with a long edit summary, that seems out of character, but also the comment doesn't make much sense.
  • Now, the first IP 83.30.178.87 again - 16:06-16:15 leaves a message on my talk page, and reinstates one edit to Das Erste.
  • Special:Contributions/83.30.44.4 - 17:45-17:52, changes whitespace in Das Erste, reinstates all the other edits of 83.30.178.87, then reverts the edit of 83.30.23.208 in Cohesion (computer science) and changes whitespace.
  • Special:Contributions/83.30.45.89 - 17:54-17:55, just changes whitespace in Cohesion (computer science) and Das Erste.
  • Now, the first IP 83.30.178.87 again - 20:17 leaves another message on my talk page.

If it's too much information, don't worry about it. It's just a bit of a puzzle. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Canterbury_Tail/Historic_Archive_14&oldid=1230765787"