Jump to content

User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

DYK nomination of Fiora Contino

Hello! Your submission of Fiora Contino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fiora Contino

On 18 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fiora Contino, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peter G. Davis wrote after a performance of Risurrezione that Fiora Contino (pictured) "may be the last conductor on earth with the music of Alfano and his generation in her bloodstream"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fiora Contino. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fiora Contino), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious

courage and images

Thank you for quality articles such as Shoe polish, Edward Low, Mr. Lady Records and Fiora Contino, for the courage to explore unknown operatic territory, for images of nature such as a baby dragon, - Neil, repeating (23 March 2010): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers fish&karate 09:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny

Funny you delete my article because i said that Japan is not Great power, it's very not gentle. Come on try to be objective. Orangdepok1 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don’t know what article you’re referring to, could you let me know the name and I can take another look. fish&karate 05:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for adding Iran to the On This Day section. :) Nusent 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. fish&karate 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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)

Danica Patrick

Not sure why you reported this to WP:ANEW as it's set up to handle users, not articles. I've semi-protected the page - also not sure why you just didn't do that. Checkusers won't connect IPs to registered editors. --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't semi protect because protection isn't for resolving content disputes, and semi protection won't stop the edit warring anyway. fish&karate 10:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protection stops the socking to continue the edit war that you suspected was happening. It also forces IPs to use the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 13:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ran Neu-Ner Speed Deletion

How may I get this deleted page moved into my draft space? I was not finished editing it to add better references and for notability on Wikipedia.

RJ Thomas 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC) talk

Yes, of course - please see Draft:Ran Neu-Ner, which I've restored for you. fish&karate 10:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for notability

Hi Fish and Karate, I made the article "Motty Steinmetz" a few days ago, being new to Wikipedia I didn't know all the rules about notability ,so it got deleted.I then researched all the notability criteria and made sure my article complied with it. I thought then it was suitable so put it up again. It obviouly did not meet the criteria so you took it down. What am I doing wrong and how can I prove notability.Would it be possible for you to have a look at the draft to tell me what edits I need or what is wrong with the sources.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Bernstein/sandbox Thank you very much Adam Bernstein (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Adam Bernstein

Hi Adam. I've replied on your talk page. Regards, fish&karate 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see thatAdam Bernstein (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I've had another go at writing this article. I've replaced all the sources with ones from reputable publications(I've explained the publications in the talk section) is this more suitable for an article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Motty_Steinmetz Thank you very much Adam Bernstein (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new user on Wikipedia. I wasn't finished drafting the page before you deleted it. I was going to add references for notability shortly. Can you let me know?MikeGolin (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mike, see your talk page. fish&karate 10:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment

This was an unfortunate raising of the stakes. If I did it as an AE action, and you undid it, that would greatly endanger your future editing powers. --John (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Threats? Really? Just because you say something is to do with an Arbcom sanction doesn’t make it so. fish&karate 20:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ishq mein marjawan

pls open the page of ishq mein marjawan so that i can update the story of show plzzz its a request plzzzzzzzzzzz

Request to increase protection

Hello, I would like to request that the protection on the article Mark Sifneos be elevated to full protection with the same expiration date as the current semi-protection. The semi-protection has not stopped a number of auto-confirmed users from adding blatantly false, uncited information to the page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: - no problem, I have increased it to extended confirmation protection, which should stop the vandalism without resorting to full protection. fish&karate 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought full might be a bit extreme, and I forgot about ECP. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Magic word

Just to explain, you hadn't closed it at the point I edited the subsection, since you closed the entire thread and I was only editing the subsection, there wasn't an edit conflict, but it does appear as if I edited a closed discussion now. It doesn't make any impact on the result, but I will drop a quick explanation on my !vote Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you for the courtesy note, it's appreciated. No worries. Fish+Karate 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm more annoyed I missed the entire discussion tbh given I have extensively commented elsewhere (at the state of WD for example) and only noticed it from Fram's closure request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

UOIT

Wow, I've never seen anything like that! Really needed a good karate chop. I will watch for similar problems on other articles. Thanks for the good work. Regards, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's loads of articles like that. You come across them from time to time. Often they're done in good faith but forget that this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a proxy for an institution's or company's website; we we don't need to dump every last bit of trivia onto the article. But thanks for the kind words! Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Just dropping by to say hi. It's nice to see another old-timer (hope you don't mind me using this term) coming back after a long break and finding joy in editing again. I came back to editing actively last July after allegedly 10 years of absence (ha) and I've been confronted with worse labels I think (after doing some administrative works); IMO I think the atmosphere in Wikipedia these days are far more toxic than in the past. Alex Shih (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Alex Shih:, I think you're absolutely right. Nevertheless, we persevere :) Fish+Karate 08:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Useful idiot

Hi Neil, would you be able to clarify your closure of the RfC on that page? My question was:

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?

Your closing statement was:

the consensus appears to be pretty clear that while the OED is usually a reliable source for etymology and the like, in this instance there are sufficient concerns that if it is referenced within this article, it should be specifically attributed to the OED and it should be noted that other sources differ in their opinions.

I then added in a reference to the OED with what I thought was appropriate wording. My very best wishes (talk · contribs) then removed it with the comment, "RfC closing does not tell it must be used on the page. It tells: "IF it is referenced within this article" - I do not think it should be used/referenced at all - as explained on talk page.". He is correct in that the closing statement does use the word "if". Therefore, the closing statement does not address the question I asked, and the question editors were answering. I don't have a problem with what you concluded, and I don't think anyone else does, but if taken literally, it doesn't answer the question. (By the way, the article has always acknowledged that people attribute the phrase to Lenin and it always will.) We have had a long-running dispute about this at the talk page, which is why I started the RfC. It would be good to have a clear answer either way.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jack Upland:. Apologies for the fuzzy wording in my close. I did see the consensus as being to include the phrase, but specifically attributed to the OED and with the caveats discussed. I will note this on Talk:Useful idiot. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fish+Karate 08:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your very prompt reply.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how you can guarantee that the article "always will" state that it's widely attributed to Lenin. There were several editors obstinately edit warring to remove that, and although some are now banned, I don't think we should mandate what must be used, but only how to properly attribute and contextualize it if, in the future course of the article's improved versions, it is included. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @SPECIFICO:. I don't think I said that - I think I said the consensus was that, right now, the article should include it. Consensus can change, new sources can become available, please don't think that I'm trying to decree that it Will And Must Be In The Article From Now Unto Forever. Fish+Karate 15:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't mean to say you were implying that. I meant to say that @Jack Upland: said he was confident this will always be in the article but that recent history suggests it will be relitigated over and over. Anyway, we'll see what develops. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Closer Award

 Slakr's Closer Award

Since you spend so much time closing long-open discussions, you are hereby awarded something to help you close other things that might be otherwise left open in the meantime.

Admittedly, you might now need to get one of those automatic cat flaps to let the good ones in and/or keep the bad ones out, but I think that probably requires spending a bunch of time on WP:ANI, doing hard time as an arbitrator, and other hells. :P

Keep up the great work, and cheers. =)

--slakr\ talk / 16:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Blimey. Thanks @Slakr:, that’s very much appreciated. Cheers! Fish+Karate 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Unite the Right rally#RfC: Should the article include mention of Trump/Pence signs?

Was a pleasure to read. I do love a close that goes into both the !vote counts and explicitly weighs the merits of the arguments. Closes that like should be more common. (I bet you thought I was going to complain about it when you saw the title of this section, didn't you? ) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I did, but then I saw I closed it in the way you !voted ... Fish+Karate 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there's that, too, heh. I just really liked the way you spelled out your thought process and judgements about the arguments. I try not to get too vested in the results of RfCs on political pages, so I'd have probably liked it just as much had you not gone the way of my !vote. It really caught me off guard (in a good way), as I'm used to seeing summaries like "no consensus here" or "consensus is such-and-such" or just commentary on the !vote count. You did a really good job there and deserve some praise for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it’s appreciated. Fish+Karate 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rob Schrab protection

In the protection log, you said in the reason you intented to semi-protect it for one week, but you actually gave the article indefinite semi-protection. — MRD2014 Talk 16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! Corrected. Thank you for spotting that, and for letting me know. Cheers @MRD2014:! Fish+Karate 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Heat-not-burn tobacco product RFC

About an hour after you closed the RFC at Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#RfC about rolling back before socks edited the page, the user who opened it has reverted your rollback and opened a brand new RFC to try and get the exact result they wanted. What are your thoughts on this behaviour? Iffy★Chat -- 14:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iffy: - what a strange thing to do, particularly as the user got the outcome he asked for. I've messaged them on their talk page. Fish+Karate 14:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Emperor of Ocean Park

On 28 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Emperor of Ocean Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter received one of the largest-ever advances from Knopf to secure the rights to publish his debut novel The Emperor of Ocean Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Emperor of Ocean Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Emperor of Ocean Park), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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)

Thank you

I am grateful for your kind supportive post at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal and even more so for your second post. Those posts are much appreciated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: - of course, I hope you can take on the advice everyone gave, and don't have any problems. Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, many thanks for being so thoughtful and considerate. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I... Umm... Hmm...

Regarding your close... I... can't help but feel like there is somewhat less than maximum possible clarity there. You say that there is consensus for the original proposal, but the wording of the close itself is the alternative proposal. Both proposals are pretty explicitly for a five year time period, and saying it's simply mentioned may be... maybe low balling it a little bit? I get that consensus wasn't super clear regarding non-logged actions, (by a wide margin the most contentious point) but... Overall I suspect this particular wording you've gone with might be a little... anemic, and may wind up putting crats in a sticky situation before too long, or put us in a situation where we need to have an RfC to clarify our RfC.

I realize that the original proposal probably could have been worded with more clarity to start out with, and I'm not necessarily saying I could have personally done much better, just offering... my intuition for whatever it's worth (possibly very little). GMGtalk 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: - I do get your point. It wasn't the best wording (RFCs, ideally, should have a nice, clear, binary choice) but consensus was pretty clear that something should be in place. Bureaucrats already do have some discretion, and I think it's better to allow them to have some wriggle room to use their judgement on the rare edge cases rather than set absolute parameters; this was mentioned a few times in the RFC, such as by Beeblebrox, Bishonen, and SoWhy. Fish+Karate 09:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was mentioned a few times, but it didn't feel like it was a clear consensus for it, and no obviously policy based reason to weigh them more heavily. I was trying to catch you while you were still online, and maybe avoid the need for immediate and subsequent clarifying discussions. I don't disagree with the substance of the outcome. Honestly I'm fine either way. They both move things in the direction I would prefer. But I'm not confident someone affected with a strong cup of coffee and a penchant for lawyering couldn't challenge a policy not perfectly aligned with the close, which is not perfectly aligned with the discussion. GMGtalk 11:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

input on Draft:Richard Walter Thomas

There seems to be some questions that perhaps a few people could chime in on. I'm approaching senior members of various projects related to the subject as I can find to see if they might be interested in reviewing the draft and comments on the talk page. Smkolins (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Smkolins:, I have posted my thoughts on the talk page. I like the article a lot but it's perhaps a bit too long and laundry-listy (I know this is not a real word). Fish+Karate 09:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


C. Ravichandran: Deleted page

Hi, I had created a biography article on malayalam author C. Ravichandran and it was speedily deleted per the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Ravichandran. But I doubt if the reasons cited in that discussion page was relevant for the newly created article. There was no promotional content and sources were cited to establish the notability of the subject. Here is one such source. There were also recent news links to the person winning reputed literature awards in Kerala. I wonder what mistake I did and what I should do next to restore this article. Can you guide me through the steps? JK (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jayakrishnan.ks100:. There was nothing in your recreated article, I'm afraid, that was substantially different or better than the version deleted previously. The additional source you provided is not really very much - it consists of six sentences about something C. Ravichandran once said. Please review Wikipedia's general guide to notability. In order for an article to exist on the subject, it would need to clearly and reliably demonstrate how it adheres to reliable sources and notability. At this point given the article has been created and deleted twice, I suggest you work on it in your own test environment, which you can find at User:Jayakrishnan.ks100/sandbox. I have had a look for what is available on this person, however, and I do not think that there is sufficient evidence available at this time that this person is sufficiently notable to have a dedicated Wikipedia article. Regards, Fish+Karate 12:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim consensus

Hi,

Thanks for summing up the consensus on the Weinstein matter on Noah Oppenheim. During the discussion, one of the participants added a sentence about the matter back into the article (another editor had deleted all of the proposed language), rather than wait for the consensus.

  • "Oppenheim was criticized for NBC News not using the Ronan Farrow report on Harvey Weinstein."

He took the criticism part of the passage being discussed in the RfC and added it to the article. As decided, it's COATRACK, but also worse for NPOV than before this RfC discussion began because it doesn't have the NBC explanation that the story was not ready for publication because it had no named sources.

As I disclose on the Talk page, I have a COI as a paid consultant to NBC, so I cannot make changes to the article. Can you take a look and make any needed change? I think the sentence should just be deleted as per the consensus.

By the way, there is a very extensive passage about this matter now in the NBC News article -- I made sure it was fairly discussed and a consensus reached. Another editor added the passage. NBC News#1995 onwards

Thanks,

Ed BC1278 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Thanks,

Ed

@BC1278: Hi Ed. I have removed the sentence in question as per the RFC consensus. Cheers, Fish+Karate 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: I just noticed you also inadvertently dropped the citations, which were the only sources being used to support the preceding statements, unrelated to Weinstein. I know this is minor housekeeping, and normally I'd just restore the citations myself, but this matter has also been contentious, so I don't think I should touch this article at all. Best BC1278 (talk)BC1278
@BC1278: Apologies, I was away for the weekend to couldn't respond quicker. Thanks for fixing that for me, I can't imagine there is any issue or COI whatsoever with your just restoring some citations, that was entirely reasonable and appropriate. All the best, Fish+Karate 09:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

edward low

Hey buddy, why did you delete my contribution in Edward Low? --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, but according to who? who says what is an improvement and what not? it's your opinion against mine, and I saw a low of wikipedia's articles about pirates with the same kind of reference in pop culture, so I don't see why in Edward Low could not be. greetings--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because yours isn't written in legible English, is unsourced, and is nonsense. What does "he can split the enemies with his devil's fruit hability" even mean. See your talk page. Fish+Karate 09:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

what do you mean with is not written in legible english? I don't want to argue, so i will edit that, and i'll put these references: https://aminoapps.com/c/onepiece/page/blog/curiosidades-de-trafalgar-d-water-law/pXvX_aK0TQuNneG1BjpwweJNXJJ0WK7Nzj and http://www.onepiecepodcast.com/2014/12/16/chao-time-the-meaning-behind-trafalgar-law/. so you can not say that it's unsourced. But for your information, in a lot of other pirate's wiki, one of their pop culture references is about the MOST FAMOUS anime about pirates in history, One Piece. please don't say that i am a vandal. I am not a vandal, i just love the pirate history and i love to improve articles and help. greetings dude.--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Hi. Ok i give up, but tell me please, why do you say that is not understandable english? what it is the problem? I think the redaction was ok. --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sarmiento 007: can I ask is your first language English? Fish+Karate 11:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi buddy, yes, I can speak english fluently. Which specific part is not understandable? greetings.--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sarmiento 007: The following bits of your edit were not written in accurate, understandable English:
  • the pirate Trafalgar Law is based in this pirate (presume you mean "is based ON this pirate")
  • Low used to enjoy torturating other pirates (presume this means "Low used to enjoy TORTURING other pirates" - and there's nothing in the article that suggests this is the case)
  • the surgeon of the death (no idea - maybe "The Surgeon of Death"?)
  • because he can split the enemies with his devil fruit's hability (what on earth does this even mean)

The very poor English above makes me wonder whether there's a language issue, which would explain things. And the two references you provided are blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources I'm afraid. I'm being very patient here, and I appreciate you are just trying to help, but the edit really didn't improve the article, it made the article worse. Fish+Karate 14:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I really appreciate your help, thank you very much, and for your information, Trafalgar Law can divide (split) the parts of the body of the people. You would understand it if you would see One Piece. Hugs, buddy ;) . --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Close a RM

Please review and close the RM at Portal talk:Civil Rights Movement. More than seven days has passed since it was initiated. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: - Hi, it looks to me like discussion is ongoing and it would be far too soon to close it. Typically I would only close a discussion such as this if there have been no comments for several days, rather than seven days from the initiation of the discussion. Cheers, Fish+Karate 11:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful Idiot RfC, again

Hi Fish & Karate, over at WP:ANI, SPECIFICO has been repeatedly misrepresenting the outcome of the RfC you closed over at Useful idiot. They keep claiming that the result was only to limit what claims could be attributed to the OED, and that the RfC result did not say the OED should be referenced. See this thread. Someone needs to step in and make it clear that this misrepresentation of the RfC result is unacceptable, and direct SPECIFICO to abide by it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have said no such thing, and it's really not going to be worth anyone's while to pursue this any further.
The RfC did not specify the proposed article text and has led to a lot of confusion that can best be resolved by a new, clearly stated proposal on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No, you have misrepresented the RfC result over and over again:
  • "Did you bother to read the close of the RfC? It does not require the disputed reference to be used. It simply limits the claims that can be attributed to it." -[1]
  • "'When you use OED you should attribute its statement' does not mean 'you should use OED'" -[2]
  • "We have MVBW, whose view is apparently shared by 1/2 dozen editors, reading the close as supporting a certain article text." -[3]. Here, you're defending article text that removes the OED discussion entirely, in violation of the RfC result (e.g., [4])
You've also removed the OED discussion from the article multiple times, claiming that this removal was following "consensus," despite the fact that your edit violated the result of the RfC:
The level of cynicism involved here is really startling. You know what the RfC result was, yet you've misrepresented it several times over at ANI, and you've continued to remove the discussion of the OED from the article, citing a non-existent "consensus." Then, when I bring this issue to Fish and Karate's attention, you deny having misrepresented the RfC, despite the proof being easily available. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I really think it would be better for you to make comments as to the substance of the articles and not undocumented aspersions about various other editors. Especially, as you've already been reminded by others, when you are fresh off a TBAN relating to Russia content. The matter has now been sorted out, more or less, at the ANI thread. You may not be pleased with the outcome but it's time to return to the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
"undocumented aspersions": I quoted directly from your posts, with links. These aren't "undocumented aspersions" - they're documented cases in which you misrepresented the outcome of the RfC, and then denied having made those misrepresentations. I agree that focusing on content is far preferable to focusing on editors, but when an editor's behavior disrupts work on content (for example, when you don't accept the outcome of an RfC and then misrepresent it), addressing that behavior can become unavoidable.
"You may not be pleased with the outcome but it's time to return to the article": I'm pleased with the outcome as regards the content question. The result of the RfC, to include the OED's statement on etymology, was affirmed. I hope you won't continue to deny the RfC result. However, a clear statement by an admin on the behavioral issues I documented above would help make sure those problems with your behavior don't recur. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies to both - am on holiday (vacation) and my internet access is very limited. Back in a week. Fish+Karate 13:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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)

Talk:Bergen County Executive

First, thank you for closing the RFC. By having someone uninvolved close the RFC I hoped to avoid any issues. However it seems that it the problems were unaviodable. Based on the consensus as you assessed it I tried to limit the amount of biographical details in article. USER:Djflem, however keeps reverting my edits, calling them "vandalism" and insists that the consensus is not valid because he is not satisfied that the article is a coatrack (which it is). SeeTalk:Bergen County Executive#Consensus. It seems to me that his objections are just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Is there anything you can do to help or should I just take to ANI?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: - You don't need to go straight to ANI every time. I have left a message for Djflem on his talk page. Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have asked the other editor involved to clarify how the essay Wikipedia:Coatrack articles is relevant to Bergen County Executive. That editor has cited that as his reason for very selective and random edits. S/he has been asked to explain how s/he is applying the policy. Can you please also do the same citing specific parts. And explain how you came to the conclusion that it would be OK to remove specific information that was never specifically discussed, namely where any other editor besides the one who removed he birth-dates called for specific removal of that information. And hence your edit to also remove it? In general can you also explain where you find in the consensus to remove the information that has been removed? If you indeed have no vested interest, why are you also making edits which favor one editor's choice, which you have done? Please revert. Clearly there has been long discussion, but there was never a consensus to as to which specific material should or should not be kept, was there? If you think so, then please elaborate.Djflem (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is most of what is mentioned in the discussion about what NOT include: "information such as high school attended, spouse, children, family life, which unions they belong to", "a boyscott at 13", "my hometown, my employer or the building I happen to live in", "family life of office holders is not appropriate for an article of this nature", "strictly personal info (school, education etc) should be limited to a sentence or two for each person" "I'd expect to see dates of office, dates of life, and a few bullet points of key decisions made. Biographical detail might also include other political positions and key business involvement. School, family, etc seems extra". Those specifics are generally not in the article, but there appears to no consensus as what NOT TO include or TO include. With regard to your edit, why did you remove dates-of-birth?Djflem (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Djflem: - I'll clarify WP:COATRACK for you first. A 'coatrack' article is one that includes lots of non-relevant material. In the case of this article, it (was) being used as a way to include swathes of biographical information on each member of the executive, because they do not have their own articles, because they are not notable. From WP:COATRACK: Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. I didn't specifically set out to remove dates of birth, I undid your edit warring against the consensus in the RFC; the consensus was to remove the irrelevant information. If you can explain why the fact someone who served as an executive was born on April 13 is of encyclopedic relevance, I will be delighted to undo my edit. Fish+Karate 08:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Project name

Hi. Could you add to the discussion at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page, where his close of a project name has been pointed out to be inaccurate due to several factors. The consensus to change the project name is not present in the discussion, and in fact the opposite seems true. This one may be worth some time to reread and reanalyze, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I'll take a look. I can't read all that thread on his talk page as that horrible font gives me a headache. I'll have to copy and paste it to a sandbox and change the font. Fish+Karate 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Firearms RfC

Hi, I just finished reading your close of the firearms RfC, and wanted to point out one minor item; you wrote ...not one argued for option B for either question, which makes things (infinitesimally) easier. Actually, I did, and when I look through the other replies, I see that two others did as well, with another two beyond that listing 'B' as a secondary choice. Now out of the total numbers, I don't think those three (+2 'sort ofs') would have much of an effect on consensus, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. I note the way the three are worded might have been a factor in them being missed. But anyway, it was a lengthy and messy RfC and I (am I'm sure others as well) appreciate you taking the time to go through it and then write out lengthy, detailed close to make your determination as clear as possible to as many as possible. Nice job and Cheers - theWOLFchild 14:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - whoops, missed that. Thank you for pointing that out, they weren't worded in such a way as to spot that readily, as you say. I've made a minor tweak to the wording of the close to reflect this. Thanks for the kind words also :) Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Mail

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guerillero: - I got your email. I think my interpretation is somewhat different. My close would be along the lines of:

I note one of the people supporting the retention of the list of names now topic banned from "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace", and therefore their !vote here is discounted.

13 people have argued to retain the list (2 weakly), and 12 have argued to remove it. In addition, arguments must be in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. A number of the arguments to remove the list (the 'opposes') have cited WP:MEMORIAL. However, this policy explicitly states 'Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.' These lists are not the subject of the article, and therefore arguments based exclusively on WP:MEMORIAL are of limited validity, as noted by CookieMonster755 and WikiVirusC, among others. There is clearly no issue with reliable sourcing, so WP:BLP is less of a factor here (noting that it does, explicitly, also cover the recently-deceased).

I feel a broader discussion may take place at some point around lists of victims in articles around a mass murder, and whether these are always, never, or sometimes relevant, but in this instance, the strength of argument rooted in policy, and hence the consensus, is to retain the list of names.

Hope that helps. I appreciate it's different to your thoughts. Fish+Karate 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it all comes down to how you read WP:MEMORIAL and then weight the comments. I think the fact that we read the discussion in opposite ways is a decent argument that there isn't really a consensus in either direction. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a decent argument that many closes are a roll of the dice and depend too much on who shows up to close. The reason is that the body of policy is—unnecessarily—vague and self-contradictory, and very little attention is being paid to improving that problem. But that's a much larger issue than the one addressed in that discussion, and I am not challenging the close. Thank you both for your interest and participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, with clearer policy that discussion might have been avoided entirely. If that many experienced editors are misinterpreting NOTMEMORIAL, for example, there's something wrong with NOTMEMORIAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: - I agree, it could be more explicit that NOTMEMORIAL means "don't make a memorial page for your dead family member/teacher/friend/pet." Fish+Karate 08:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. And then there's the fact that policy is supposed to reflect community consensus, and many, many editors disagree with that interpretation for the reasons expressed fairly well in that discussion. Thus any community consensus for that interpretation is weak at best. See User:Mandruss#The p&g paradox. You seem smart and knowledgeable, maybe you'd care to take a shot at explaining that paradox. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Policy should indeed reflect community consensus, and then the community should adhere to that. That's not a paradox; it's not binary, both can and do happen simultaneously. The main issue in my view is that the community is vast, and every single 'community' discussion is only ever participated in by a small self-selecting section of that community, with that participation determined by interest (whether that be in the topic, through self-interest, through in the political aspects, to influence something else, etc.; everyone has a different reason for doing what they do). I would hazard a guess that the majority of Wikipedia editors have never even looked at the Village Pump, let alone participated in policy/guideline discussions there, yet that's purportedly where policy and guidelines are formed, amended, and withdrawn. And those discussions that do take place are often subverted/led (depends on your perspective) by a few editors with the time and the inclination to out-shout everyone else. So you end up with policy and guidelines being determined by a minority of a minority. The fundamental policies of Wikipedia, though, are pretty incontrovertible, and every other policy and guideline should derive from them. Fish+Karate 08:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm regularly told that community consensus is in what editors do, not what is codified in PAGs. They assert unwritten community consensus and expect you to take their word for it. Invariably the person saying that disagrees with what is written—if they agree with it, then they point to what is written as community consensus, and any number of editors who are doing something different are simply wrong. Sorry if this whole thing seems more than a little rigged to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Firearms

Thanks for closing the Firearms RfC. Would you mind taking a look at the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use? –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look, but honestly I don't really want to get dragged in to a topic area I'm not interested in. I just closed the RFC. Fish+Karate 09:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand, I'll ask NeilN (talk · contribs). –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: - if you don't have any luck, then I can try, but us Neils are usually quite sensible. Fish+Karate 12:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


Dear Fish and karate, I am very sorry write this lines here. But Dlthewave encouraged me by this. As quoted above there is an "ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use". Sorrowfully I am not familiar with RFC's Poll's as they are handled in en:WP. But I support WP-Project since more than 10 years and our 5 Pillars of WP are in the centre of global common sense. The target of the RFC should have been to find a consensus/guideline to continue our work on this encyclopedia. The RFC should not be a key-opener for a mission as it now shows out to be. If Dlthewave is going on with his (felt by me) "Hardliners Course" it will harm the project more than it helps. In de:WP we have had similar situations and we already lost most of our technical orientated co-autors. The last right you have, is choosing to leave. So please if you don't mind take a closer look on the projekt-page. For better understanding, please also to other related threads there. I already asked Dlthewave to be "a little more affable" but it did not cause a change and I feel some uprising WP:Wikilawyering. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. sorry for my lack in language skills

Ｔｏｍ, I suggest you accept the result of RFC and work with editors trying to implement its close. This isn't de:WP and frankly, some of your prior posts (example) have me wondering if you should be editing here. --NeilN talk to me 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I follow your suggestion, I accept the RFC and I try to work with editors trying to implement its close. But "The closing admin encouraged folks to come forward with any concerns ..." and in this case I just try to mention that there are discussions about how to interpret the closure of the RFC. I apologize and hope this may be done. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Unhelpful commentary

Why did you find it necessary to attempt to further antagonize the situation at WBG's talk page? That seems incredibly unbecoming for an administrator, and it especially doesn't look good after your aggressive message at my talk page that was both uncalled for and without any actual reason. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

[5] [6] [7] - edit warring to remove a comment that (civilly) criticizes you
[8] - threats
[9] - snide edit summary
[10] [11] - threatening both to leave Wikipedia if you don't get your own way, and to be disruptive
[12] - calling me a 'patronizing ass'
[13] - "bullcrap"
[14] [15]- moral superiority because WBoG "is not an administrator" (in bold)

And that's all just today. Fish+Karate 12:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

At no point was I acting in an administrative role in those diffs, so I fail entirely to see your point. Editors are allowed to be snide, snarky, and to express emotions. But deliberately attempting to antagonize a situation and misrepresent my comments (I said "patronizing ass commentary" not that you yourself were a patronizing ass, but kudos on the attempt to take my words out of context) here are things that appear to be completely disruptive for the point of disruption... whereas I'm actually attempting to accomplish things here (see my literally just today passed DYK nom, the GA that just passed before that, and the many other pieces of work I've done outside of the talkspace). Regardless, I asked you a question about why you were acting immaturely and your only response is to point to a singular conflict I got into today regarding only one particular (and very tedious/borderline meaningless) matter. Do you actually think that excuses your behavior somehow? Is this how you typically respond to editor concerns about your actions? Listing their actions as a defense for yours? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I would defend my actions if I felt they required defending, or if they'd been queried by anyone whose opinion is not rendered irrelevant by their breathtaking hypocrisy. Fish+Karate 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Rodgers RFC

I saw your close at Talk:Aaron Rodgers. For future reference in other bios, would you be able to update your close to explain the compelling arguments to mention his current dating situation as opposed to closing as "No consensus"? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: In this instance, given the majority of the arguments were in favour of mentioning his current dating situation, it is sourced reliably, and the arguments to not include it were chiefly around WP:RECENTISM and made two months ago, which pretty much renders them moot. I appreciate you wanted a different outcome, but I close them as I see them. Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Honestly wasn't expecting a change, per se. I can respect your close based on your thinking that two months had passed. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Request

I request extended confirmed protected indefinitely for this page. There is continued IP vandalism and suspicious accounts vandalizing the page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: - please go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and follow the instructions there. All the best, Fish+Karate 08:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I did request extended confirmed protected indefinitely[16] for the other page. The only way to obtain extended confirmed protected indefinitely is with a RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No it isn't, you can request it at WP:RFPP. You will need to demonstrate pretty unequivocally with diffs why it is required. Fish+Karate 14:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion should be over at Talk:List of electronic cigarette brands but after the close it continues. Can you reclose it or just archive the discussion? QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
It's fine, one editor made one comment, it's not going to end the world as we know it. Fish+Karate 09:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I originally made my comment here and now it is be moved again to where I did not comment. I think it is best to reclose it or just archive the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That w***** made a comment inside the closed discussion and is now complaining about another user doing the same as a response to her own posting. Figure that chutzpah.--TMCk (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Fabulous edit summary

Just couldn't let this go unnoticed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:) Fish+Karate 14:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis

I noticed that you closed the Proposed merge with 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of India. I have removed the, now obselete, merger discussion notices from the two articles. I have also proposed a different merger for the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis article, namely to the Dipak Misra article, for the reasons explained at Talk:Supreme Court of India#New proposal. --Bejnar (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I was a bit startled to read your comment directed at me here. You might want to read through past AE archives and see how many discussions were closed by admins participating in the discussions. AE does not operate like ANI. --NeilN talk to me 10:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I get that, but given a) the propensity for wikilawyering and b) just as a second pair of eyes on decisions, *my opinion* is it's better to let someone else close. I didn't mean to startle you. I hope you're ok. Fish+Karate 10:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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)

Re: RFC at High Point High School

Hi! I saw your closing comments at Talk:High_Point_High_School#RfC_about_including_a_map_of_the_school's_attendance_boundary. Would it be okay if I added a link to the school district's attendance boundary map? It is readily available, and perhaps I should have thought to include it... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Sure, I don’t see why not. Fish+Karate 16:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

a heads-up

Wikipedia:JOKE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:JOKE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:JOKE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Geo Swan (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for New England White

On 11 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New England White, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor and a schoolgirl set in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New England White. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, New England White), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion of RFC

Hey Fish+Karate [17],

You've previously concluded an RFC on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Would you like to conclude another one? My thanks if you so choose. François Robere (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

nick joong

hi admin. you might want to see the mess here [18] to review not to protect the page. thanks Quek157 (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

salting it will make lives easier for all Quek157 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Quek157: Hi Quek157, we don't preemptively protect pages before an issue occurs. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation_protection. If an issue does occur, let me or any other admin know and we can delete and salt it then, which takes just a couple of seconds. Fish+Karate 10:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thanks for your kind explanation. will do so Quek157 (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Too many infobox RfCs

Hey, Fish. You closed an infobox RfC on Talk:Nicholas Hoult on 30 April, apparently with some qualms as there was no strong consensus either way, but you ended by saying "I'm going to close this and surmise that the infobox is to be removed, and if it is to be re-added, there needs to be a consensus achieved on this talk page to do so. I will remove the infobox now, and will view further edit-warring about this dimly." And then you removed it. And then the box was re-added on 12 May with the edit summary "Restoring infobox as per talk page discussion?"[19]. Yes, the question mark was part of the edit summary. The box was re-added in the midst of yet another infobox RfC, which so far has plenty of support for inclusion, but has only been running for 16 days. (Too many infobox RfCs! Maybe the article needs the same kind of page restriction as I added at Talk:Stanley Kubrick, to stop these RfCs erupting over and over.) Anyway, how do you feel about the re-addition? Do you want to express your dim view of it, perhaps remove the box again, or leave it while the RfC runs? And would you have any objection to me adding a page restriction like at Stanley Kubrick? I'd be happy to do that, but I don't really want to decide the fate of the box currently on the article. I bet you're sorry you ever had anything to do with the infobox wars. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Hi Bish. I just closed the RFC as I saw it. As it looks like the new RFC is heading towards a different conclusion, I could make a fuss about removing the infobox until the RFC has run its course, but would there be any real point to digging my heels in? It's going to end with the infobox being restored anyway, and as I don't care either way whether it has one or not, I'm inclined to let it be. Fish+Karate 11:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I'll also hang fire with the page restriction, because that talkpage isn't quite as infobox-RFC infested as Stanley Kubrick. But if the box is restored per the new consensus, as seems likely, and there is then another RfC attempting to remove it a few weeks later, I'll do it. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC).
Fine by me, consider this a stamp of approval: *thunk*. Fish+Karate 11:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad

You've recently fully protected the page Carl Benjamin because there was some edit warring, but I've realised due to some of the recent editing there's a grammatical error in the lede. It says "he better known as..." and obviously this is a pretty glaring mistake. Anyway, I can't fix it so I thought I'd tell you seen as though you were the admin that protected the page. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: no problem.  Done Fish+Karate 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ram Mohan Roy‎‎

I think the article Ram Mohan Roy‎‎ desperately needs your intervention. A whole bunch of ISPs and infrequent contributors are having a field day with the drafting of the article. Could you look at placing some form of edit protection on the article. Thank you --Chewings72 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chewings72: - please request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Fish+Karate 13:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

EC protection of Bhagat Singh

I don't the EC protection is necessary, or atleast semi should be tried first. Looking at the edit history, the vast majority of vandalism/disruption is from IPs/non-autoconfirmed accounts. Since the page has been semi-protected for a year before indef semi seems perfectly reasonable but EC 6 months far too high, at-least without seeing if semi is ineffective per policy first. I think similarly for Alireza Motevaseli, where all the new accounts are non-autoconfirmed and thus trying semi first seems sensible. Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: That’s fine. I don’t mind you changing the protection levels, go right ahead. Fish+Karate 05:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Galobtter isn't an admin, Fishie. Bishonen | talk 06:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC).
Yeah I don't have the magic buttons :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow, my first talk page stalker. I've dropped both articles down to semiprotected. And @Galobtter: - whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Why not? Fish+Karate 09:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, User:Darwinfish watches your page. If there was a user:Karatebish, they probably would, too. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC).
Thanks; not experienced enough I suppose; I've only really been active for the past 8 months. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's plenty as far as I'm concerned. Wikipedia always needs more admins, and the fact I thought you were one makes me think you should be. I encourage you to consider applying. Fish+Karate 11:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Much thanks for the encouragement. I am thinking about it but right now in RfA the standard is ~12 months Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


RevisionDelete on Diana Al-Hadid

Hello, I was hoping you could take a look at the page for Diana al-Hadid. There's currently a request for a reversion of the page to a version of the page that is close to nonfunctional because of a copyright dispute. I'm happy to remove the offending paragraph under the "work" section, but I don't think reverting the page to it's old form would be of help to readers. Please let me know if you think the full redaction is necessary. Thank you. Mynameisjaysa (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mynameisjaysa: The removal of the copyrighted material was completely correct, I'm afraid. Fish+Karate 08:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

RMNAC

At an MR you closed, you wrote: "The access rights owned by a closer's account are irrelevant to their ability to gauge and close a discussion." This is misleading, and (depending on interpretational nitpicks) even incorrect in part. Per WP:RMNAC, the WP:RM process actually has non-admin closer restrictions which are tighter than those of other WP:NACs, by design. While it's technically correct that "ability to gauge ... a discussion" isn't affected by non-admin status, "ability to ... close a discussion" often is in this particular space (in the sense of ability meaning 'permitted action', not just 'physically possible action').  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Noted. When I said "ability to gauge and close a discussion", I essentially meant in the sense of "how well (or not) a person can assess consensus". Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I s'pected as much, but in this little space in particular, people have a tendency to wikilawyer and game the system anywhere they see something they leverage. I would love to see "and close" removed or struck, or the sentence otherwise revised, lest anyone try to later cite it as precedent against challenging NACs that don't comply with RMNAC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: That's fine, and done, see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_May#Involuntary_celibacy_(closed). All the best, Fish+Karate 10:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thankee. :-) I've learned the hard way to be sensitive to closures' wording. (Part of it's from doing so much policy editing, too; it's made me alert to any potential for gaming.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion

This deletion of Cuéntame cómo pasó (Argentina) was a tad draconian, don't you think? Yes, the article may well have been an unattributed translation of a foreign Wikipedia page, but if you could do enough research to find that out, you could do the work to provide the proper attribution, rather than deleting as a copyright violation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Will update as I go through them. Fish+Karate 08:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: @Galobtter: @WikiDan61: - all done for now, I haven't done some of them as they were dire. Are you happy with the above? Fish+Karate 09:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Great work! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Nice work at RFPP this morning - I pottered over there wondering if there was anything that needed doing, and saw that you'd barnstormed your way through the lot! You'll make the rest of us look bad, you know... Yunshui 雲水 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Why thank you. Appreciated! Fish+Karate 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate/Archive_31&oldid=1253902249"