User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 11

Car/automobile?

I am so used to saying "car" that I was surprised to find Antony Flew use car and automobile as a difference between British and American English respectively, right after lift and elevator. Should "automobile" be added to a list of differences? PS insular American who has never been across the pond, but have blood from Coventry and Wendron. Cake (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that Americans use car and automobile, whereas British people would only ever use car except in a highly technical context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

On names of churches in Italy, Santa Maria del Pianto specifically

I prefer to have churches suffixed with place, since it would help someone looking through categories discern the localization of the church at a glance. Also I fear someone will name a hotel or restaurant with the same name in some other city. But alas, I notice Wikipedia prefers the simplest descriptor, over the more informative.

On Santa Maria del Pianto, however, I strongly disagree with the move. It may be the only such church in Wikipedia at this point, but there are churches with same name in at least in Venice, Rome, and Naples. And in time, this is not likely to be true. This name change will lead to complex disambiguation in the future. I recommend you revert this specific change.

This may be true for others. For some churches, the name is so specific, that they will remain unique as a church name: San Giacomo dell'Orio for example.Again, anyone looking in categories of 17th-century Roman Catholic churches would not necessarily know San Giacomo dell'Orio is in Venice.

Thanks. Rococo1700 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As you say, we do not pre-disambiguate on Wikipedia. If an article on another church is created in the future then disambiguation can easily occur. But I shall revert Santa Maria del Pianto if you consider it necessary as I do happen to agree that more common names should be pre-disambiguated (and in general I have left such more common names as they are). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Necrothesp. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fortification of Antwerp

You are welcome to review the progress on User:DerekvG/sandbox/edits_fortifications_Antwerp--DerekvG (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles Purdom

Hi Necrothesp, Can you tell me what trade union Charles Purdom belonged to, and where you read it? It is not mentioned in the article. He was a critic and an economist, so not sure what trade union he would belong to? Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dazedbythebell: He was General Secretary of Equity. It says so in the first paragraph of his article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

honours noted
... you were recipient no. 988 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Size of post-nominals

Hello.

I have noticed that you have done a couple (at least) of changes like this that have appeared on my watchlist, so I'm wondering if there is any general convention or consensus for this, or if it is "your personal preference" (I'm not trying to be cheeky, just asking in good faith).

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In the real world, it's not standard practice to put postnoms in smaller font than the name, and before the template was introduced this was almost never done on Wikipedia either. The template was unfortunately designed by an editor who does have a personal preference for a smaller font and who has loudly resisted all attempts to change the default to standard font; given he does have a few supporters (almost all non-British, although the vast majority of postnoms are, of course, within British biographical articles; he himself is Canadian and claims it's standard practice in Canada), these attempts have ended up petering out before achieving anything. It's bizarre and illogical, as we put pretty much nothing else in a non-standard font size within article text. As to commas, they may or may not be used (and my preference is actually usually not to use them, although that is personal preference and I certainly wouldn't change them if they were already used). However, if the individual has a title, as Carrington does, then a comma already separates the title from the name, so for consistency's and appearance's sake it's better to use them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What is the use outside Wikipedia? On an envelope address, for instance (using Lord Carrington's grandfather, as he had fewer post-nominals), wouldn't it say

The Lord Carrington CVO DSO DL

rather than

The Lord Carrington CVO DSO DL

or

The Lord Carrington, CVO, DSO, DL

?

Personally, I think the first occurrence looks much better (my main "objection" is the commas), but as I'm not British, I will not take sides on what is correct. It would be nice to see an actual example from reality.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the postnoms would invariably appear at the same size as the name/title. This is the style almost always used in Britain.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] As I said, commas are optional. In your example, I'd agree with not using commas (as a personal preference only, although this is also very common modern British practice - older practice was invariably to use commas), since there are no other commas, but:

Rupert Clement George Carington, 4th Baron Carrington CVO DSO DL

just looks weird and inconsistent, as we have a comma between name and title, but no comma between title and postnominals. Other alternatives I've seen on Wikipedia, which are even weirder in my opinion, include:

Rupert Clement George Carington, 4th Baron Carrington CVO, DSO, DL [no comma before postnoms, but commas between]

Rupert Clement George Carington, 4th Baron Carrington, CVO DSO DL [comma before postnoms, but no commas between]

To me, this is the most logical, consistent and pleasing version, and also the one which tallies most with common usage:

Rupert Clement George Carington, 4th Baron Carrington, CVO, DSO, DL

-- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on the comma inconsistency, at least partially. Just like you say, if there is a title, such as for the Lords Carrington, it needs to be set off with commas. If there are also post-nominals, similarly, they too need to be set off by commas – only I don't necessarily see the need for the commas in between them, but that's only my personal view.

Thanks for clearing this out for me.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have read comments from editors that it is common in America to have a single comma and then a string of qualification postnoms not separated with commas. But this is certainly not commonly done in Britain. And of course we don't add qualifications inline on Wikipedia in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean with "qualifications inline"? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean we don't add degrees etc after people's names in the first line of articles. Only honours, fellowships and the like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wendy's

An article that you have been involved in editing—Wendy's—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 03:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

No. I'm saying I don't know. Do you? Britmax (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do. So does anyone else who does even a cursory search of Google. Or even maybe anyone who lives on Earth. Why do you think the article is titled John F. Kennedy and not Jack Kennedy? Jesus wept! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much that as that the article is OK as it is. Britmax (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it currently implies he was commonly known as Jack! John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

To me, the name in brackets tells us that he is known as that but not whether it is more common than John or not. Britmax (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So, given the current wording means different things to different people (because to me it definitely means he was commonly known as Jack Kennedy), what on earth is the problem with a bit of clarification? Instead you just revert and say "Sorry, how do you known this?" -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Giving it some thought, of course I could have dealt with this in a less clumsy manner and I apologise for that. Britmax (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Military articles

I see you have moved a few to British Army officer, Royal Navy officer etc. I don't object but is that policy? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not formal policy, but established practice for articles on British officers for many years, as any glance at the cats will note. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Necrothesp.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Derek Richardson (footballer), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Please try to look at a photograph of the man (here's one, as a member of the 'All Blacks' team, which might provide a handy hint as to his ethnicity!) before simply reverting. Please also note that the tone of this message template (as I assume it is) is somewhat patronising, especially when directed to an editor who's been here even longer than you have. Thank you for your time! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Necrothesp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Necrothesp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Railway Workers' Union (Workshops)

Without any references to /any/ reliable sources, readers have no idea whether or not the Railway Workers' Union (Workshops) is even a legitimate organization. I believe the article in its current state should clearly be proposed for formal deletion unless reliable sources that confirm the /existence/ of the entity firstly, and then its notability, are added to the article...something that you should be doing it would seem, rather than acting in an overly inclusionist manner to protect a dubious article that has for two years not been given a single reliable source. joepa^T 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion properly. Don't prod it. That's only for abject rubbish and uncontroversial deletion. A major trade union clearly does not fall into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your work to improve Wikipedia is highly appreciated. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Pratyush (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations for over 100000 edits

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 12:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Raoul Trujillo

Hello Necrothesp, please note that I reverted your addition of a birth date and middle name at Raoul Trujillo as you didn't include a reliable source to verify the content. If you will be restoring the material, could you please ensure you include your source in compliance with WP:DOB? Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Surrey

Hi. Both Dorking and Reigate are already in Category:Market towns in Surrey which is a child of the category you added them to. Surely the additional category is superfluous? CalzGuy (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@CalzGuy: In every such category in England, market towns are in both categories. There's a good reason for this: some towns were once market towns, but no longer have town status, so they're in the market towns cat but not the general cat (which is for settlements which still have town status). "Town" is an official status for settlements with a town council; "market town" is unofficial. So in this case they should be in both cats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In which case the market towns cat should not be a child of the towns cat. Will you take it out or shall I?CalzGuy (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't, but it is in almost every county category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And Devon

I see you've been working through Devon as well. Two questions if I may. What is the source for current town status? And you added both Exeter and Plymouth to Category:Towns in Devon, so are cities towns too? Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO cities should not be included. Also, if a place has parish council that calls itself a town council, that is a sufficient condition to make it a town, but that is not a necessary condition. In Devon, Moretonhampstead is a town. Further afield, Rochester and Chatham are two obvious towns that do not possess a town council.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd also add that edits like [8] replace one unsourced statement with another. No town council does not make a place a village. The OS OpenNames database is an ideal reliable source for town/village classification, and lists Moretonhampstead as a town.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of cities in town categories is frankly inconsistent. Some include them. Some don't. But yes, cities are towns. They're merely towns with a slightly higher status. It's ludicrous and unhelpful not to include them in the towns categories. Source for whether something is a town or not? Its own website (or the district or country council's). If it has a town council then it's a town. If it has a parish council then it isn't. Simple. And yes, that is the technical definition of a town. I really don't think it's helpful to mix towns that are actually towns, villages that used to be towns, villages that are known as towns by their residents but have never actually been towns, and places that aren't towns by any definition (e.g. suburbs with no legal status whatsoever) as we are doing at the moment. In what way is that useful to anyone? What is the category actually for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Taking towns and cities first, I think most people would be surprised to see cities categorised as towns.

Regarding the village/town distinction, after some research I broadly agree with Necrothesp. Setting aside the various types of historical town, over which at least in Devon there shouldn't be much dispute, the crux is whether the parish council has resolved that the parish should have the status of a town, per s.245(6) of the Local Government Act 1972. None of the places that you have changed category from town to village appear to have taken this step. However Chagford, Chulmleigh, Modbury and Moretonhampstead have (semi-)official websites on which they refer to themselves as towns ([9], [10], [11], [12]), and for these, we should follow WP:V and "provide an inline citation for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". I suggest something like :

Fordleighburystead is a village,{{efn|On its website the parish council calls the settlement a town,<ref></ref> as does the Ordnance Survey,<ref></ref> but the parish council has not resolved that it should have the status of a town, as it could do under s.245(6) of the Local Government Act 1972.<ref></ref>}} ...

Do you both agree with this? I think a Government Act trumps the OS designation, Nilfanion. For completeness, I checked that all seven places that Necrothesp changed category from village to town do indeed have "town", not "parish" councils.  —SMALLJIM  13:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Category:Towns in the United Kingdom (and the text of the relevant articles) should call a place as a town if reliable sources indicate that the place is a town. It does not necessarily matter what the law says, and our interpretation of the law is is irrelevant (as that is original research), its how reliable sources apply that law in how they describe the place.

I'd disagree here on two counts:

1. The provisions of the Local Government Act are about creating new towns - merely the mechanism for creating new ones, and it is silent on whether existing towns are defunct. Saying a town is only a town if it meets the criteria of the LGA 1972, introduces complexities very much like that associated with counties.
2. If something does not meet the criteria of that act, that doesn't mean it is a village either. In Devon, neither Torquay nor Paignton have town councils. But calling them villages is absurd. With smaller settlements (eg Modbury), what reliable source do we have that the place is a village? At best we have it is "not a town for the purposes of the LGA 1972", that's very different from "it is a village".

I'd suggest that tying a common English-language word to a strict legal meaning, when that meaning is not normally applied in society, is erroneous. It would be better to call "towns for the purposes of the LGA 1972" something other than just towns, as an analogy to how "counties for the purposes of the Lieutenancy Act 1997" are "ceremonial counties" - in other words do not attempt to tie the generic words to the specific legal meaning of the act. I'd also suggest this discussion needs to go to a broader venue than a user's talk page :)--Nilfanion (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm thinking about this a bit I'd go for something like Fordleighburystead is an historic [[market town]]{{efn|<ref>For calling it a "town"</ref>, but the parish council has not declared it is a town per LGA 1972 etc.<ref></ref>}} .... That says what is true, notes the detailed legal status (plus a link to a potential article on town status in the United Kingdom), and does not say something that is NOT provided in the sources - as it avoids saying the place is a village.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm past caring! I've emptied the categories of the suburbs and housing estates that their residents like to call towns but which clearly aren't by any definition, of the planned places that haven't actually been built yet that call themselves 'new towns', of the villages that their residents like to think should be towns but aren't and never have been, and of villages that people think must be towns because "well, they're pretty big". I'm sure they'll be readded by someone. Be my guest. Categorisation on Wikipedia is an ongoing nightmare that'll probably never be sorted out. As to places like Torquay, Paignton, Rochester and Chatham, that is true and they clearly are towns, but they were of course screwed with by the introduction of unitary authorities. The joys of British local government reorganisation! As to cities being included in the towns categories, I really don't agree that people would be surprised to see them there, and in fact at least half of cities were already included in those categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh I'm used to categorisation from the Commons perspective, where its a thousand times worse :) For what its worth, OS's own definition of a town is little more than "well, it's pretty big"! I do wish local government had been done sensibly (at any level). In terms of categories it may be sensible to give "towns per the LGA 1972" their own category parallel to the existing "market towns", but below "towns". "Towns with mayoralties" perhaps? That avoids the situation above with regards to the Surrey market towns.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In view of its likely wider significance (and Necrothesp's stated lack of continuing interest) I've copied the above section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Village or town?. Let's continue any discussion there.  —SMALLJIM  17:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Uzbekistani emigrants to England has been nominated for discussion

Category:Uzbekistani emigrants to England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:English people of Uzbekistani descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:English people of Uzbekistani descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:English people of Tajik descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:English people of Tajik descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sharp Knife listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharp Knife. Since you had some involvement with the Sharp Knife redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 06:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gladstone and Talk:D'Israeli

Hello Necrothesp. Would you please consider commenting on these move discussions? The former's about whether Gladstone should be a redirect to William Ewart Gladstone, and the latter is whether D'Israeli should redirect to Benjamin Disraeli as {{R from alternative spelling}}. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 07:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at 100.2.54.213's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move review for South-West Africa

An editor has asked for a Move review of South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. André Kritzinger (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Move review for German South-West Africa

An editor has asked for a Move review of German South-West Africa. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. André Kritzinger (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Tickled Knight etc

Hi Necrothesp. Does the announcement in the London Gazette (a few hours before the official day, New Year's Eve) actually count as conferring this honour? I thought that only came at the actual ceremony? You can probably direct me to where this is all spelled out in a wiki guideline or policy somewhere. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: No. This is a common misconception and one that comes up every year. In fact, all British honours may be used as soon as they are gazetted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and remember next year. Is this written down somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:POSTNOM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Time travel....

Strictly speaking, you are 20some hours early here. Per WP:LAZYNESSISAVIRTUE I'll let it go ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: In actual fact, British honours can be used as soon as they are gazetted. Since the London Gazette had appeared, it was not at all early. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Aha - I learned something new. In my mind, it always involved Elizabeth I, Errol Flynn, and a sword... ;-). Sorry for the confusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a common misconception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Colony of Queensland

Hello, Necrothesp. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Colony of Queensland, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

DrStrauss talk 18:34, 13 January 2017 (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. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. 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 project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. 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 to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

La Amistad

Hi there! Sorry to bother you but I'm bullied on the page La Amistad, where seem imppossible to edit. I've started to read the page and I've made some edits regarding the Ship flag, after being reverted I was pulled by my self me to investigate the matter. Well ok, after several research I was wrong regarding the ship flag, no problem, anyway since the fact a ship cannot fly Spanish flag if registered to a different country, and Honduras was no longer Spain since 1821, on this sources: [13]; [14]; The Amistad, set sails from Havana to the port of Guanaja, Cuba [15], nowadays part of Esmeralda (es:Esmeralda (Cuba)#Desarrollo del territorio) municipality, Puerto del Principe wich is today called Camagüey, not the omonym Guanaja (Honduras) just because of an unsurced wikilink. Thank you in advance and sorry again. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Here on page 27: [16]:

"sailed from Havana for the port of Guanaja, in the island of Cuba"

— Page 27; Africans Taken in the Amistad: Congressional Document, Containing the Correspondence, &c., in Relation to the Captured Africans, U.S. Dept. of State, 1840.

Wich is not Honduras. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Same source, page 37:

"The Amistad is a Spanish vessel; was regularly cleared from Havana, a Spanish port in Cuba, to Guanaja, a Spanish port in the neighborood of Puerto Principe another Spanish port;"

— Page 37; Africans Taken in the Amistad: Congressional Document, Containing the Correspondence, &c., in Relation to the Captured Africans, U.S. Dept. of State, 1840.

--Nicola Romani (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And many other sources: Josep M. Fradera, Christopher Schmidt-Nowara, Slavery and Antislavery in Spain's Atlantic Empire and many others like Howard Jones, Mutiny on the Amistad or Barbara A. Sommervill, The Amistad Mutiny: Fighting for Freedom. --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Museum Article Notability

Greetings, I would like to create an article for an American museum called The Hermitage Museum & Gardens ( www.thehermitagemuseum.org ). Before I do that, however, I wanted to request that you comment on the notability criteria for the museum. I saw your comments on the deletion request page discussion on the museums wikiproject page so it seems appropriate. The Hermitage is relatively small, but it is a Smithsonian Affiliated Institution, which is at least a somewhat big deal in America. I've read the COI page as well, (I'm employed there) so I'd like to be very circusmpect and conscientious in doing this. Thank you for your time. James Theuer DerTeuerFeuer (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Turkish stubs

I note that you deprodded Emine Işın Ezen saying "senior judges are generally held to be notable". I looked around for any notability guideline for judges and failed to find one. Is he a "senior" judge? A huge number of minimal and poorly-sourced stubs are being created for Turkish judges (and "bureaucrats"): do you think they are all notable?

I see that for Mehmet Sayım Tekelioğlu you said "member of a national legislature". How do you know this? Did you find him mentioned in the 528-page online book about an institution which he is not asserted to have attended? If so, please add the page number to the reference. The article calls him "politician" which could mean anything. .... Ah, now I see by looking at "What links here" that he was indeed a Member of Parliament. It would have been helpful if you could have added that information to the article rather than just deprodding it. Thanks. PamD 16:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: WP:POLITICIAN is the guideline you're looking for for both politicians and judges. Just follow the interwiki link to Turkish Wikipedia and do a translate for the positions they held. I thought that was probably common sense and didn't need to be specified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that link: a shortcut of "JUDGES" might be a useful addition. I think if you're deprodding something on the basis of information which isn't included in the article it would be sensible to add it. Though I notice that the two lists of MPs for 22nd and 23rd parliaments are both unsourced (one has a dead link as a reference; the other has an "External link" which doesn't include Tekelioglu's name so presumably isn't a full list of results). I'll expand his article, though with {{cn}}. PamD 16:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've since found that WP:JUDGES points to a failed proposal, and have listed it at Redirects for Discussion. I've altered the section heading at WP:POLITICIAN: I remember now that I looked at the ToC of that page before concluding that judges weren't mentioned. PamD 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child oxford English Boarding School,mahadevsthan,kapileshwar-16

I forgot to watchlist the AfD, so I didn't see your comment until now, and so I'll reply here. Sometimes my brain skips a step or two when commenting; I should have put "per nom" or something to indicate that I agreed with the nomination statement except for the part where they said it should be redirected, which is where the search term thing would come into play like at a RfD. Thanks for pointing that out, even if it took me a week to notice! ansh666 19:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New Scotland Yard

I’m considering moving Curtis Green Building to New Scotland Yard now that the Metropolitan Police have officially moved from 10, The Broadway. The trouble we have is that the disambiguation is very confusing.

Currently, we have a “Scotland Yard” article which details the metonym and then goes onto give a brief history of the name itself, including the various sites at which the force has held its headquarters since around the 1890s; we have no former article for 10, The Broadway, the former HQ from which the force moved out in November 2016; and now, Curtis Green Building, the new (well, kind of) premises at which they are now based.

Historically, “Scotland Yard” was a former street in Whitehall and was so named because it stood on the site of a palace which housed Scottish royalty. Wren later used the site as a temporary base to conduct his designs. As far as I know, the name is now redundant.

My proposal would be to streamline the current articles we have to include the following:

1. Retitle Scotland Yard to History of Scotland Yard;
2. Create no article on 10, The Broadway as it is now consigned to the history books and will soon be refurbished into flats, if you read the media speculation around it. The building is not notable in itself, unlike the Curtis Green building, which is, owing to its architect and association as an annex to the Normal Shaw buildings;
3. Retitle Curtis Green Building to New Scotland Yard;

I started a discussion on the “Scotland Yard” talk page in April 2015, which has been ignored. I would consider that to be justification on WP:BRD grounds to move it all about, but have omitted to do so in order to seek further advice from avid watchers, such as yourself. Any thoughts? Cassianto^Talk 07:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: That generally sounds find, but I would keep the Scotland Yard titled as is, given the metonym is far more important than the actual building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The redirect of "New Scotland Yard" goes to Scotland Yard and needs to be deleted in order to create the New Scotland Yard article from Curtis Green Building. With that done, I can then set about jiggling stuff about in order for it to fit with the new title. I think this may require administrator rights. Cassianto^Talk 13:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Deproding

Hi, would you please be able to further explain to me your reason for dePRODing 12 Days That Shocked the World and Bordertown (miniseries)‎. Your edit summary for both was "deprod; as a TV programme it's a source in itself" but that doesn't appear to make sense to me. The articles fail to carry any RS, thus they fail WP:N and WP:V which are valid grounds for deletion. Some content of a television program is a source in itself, such as plot, but the topic still needs to meet the GNG -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Whats new?: TV series have frequently survived AfD, especially those with notable casts. Prodding in this instance is not really applicable, as lack of notability has in no way been proved. Take to AfD. Also note that WP:V and WP:N are not failed by a lack of sources currently being in the article. Please reread them. They say they're only failed if the info is not verifiable, not not verified! Completely different things. In this instance, the info clearly is verifiable. Sources do not actually have to be present in an article at the present time for it to be completely verifiable; they just have to be available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I disagree with your reasoning, but nonetheless I will consider AfDs. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROD: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." These are clearly not uncontroversial. Prods are for clear rubbish and non-notable topics, not for things that may be notable but are not well-written or well-sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you look to find supporting references to establish notability? I did, and these programs are non-notable. Not all television series warrant articles. I've proded TV articles without incident before including Eddie McGuire Tonight, Everyday Health (Australian TV series) and The Final Siren. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like POV. You can't just say "they're not notable" and expect everyone to agree with you. That's what AfD is for. If there's a consensus in the proper place that they're not notable then fine, but it's not your decision to make alone. Also note that the magazine/sport/talk shows you've cited do not compare to an historical documentary series or a miniseries with a significant cast. I'd probably agree with you that the former aren't notable (although I wouldn't prod them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not my own definition of notability. From WP:N, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. These two articles fail the general notability requirement. There's no distinction between genres of programs with respect to it, so again your argument makes no sense to me based on actual policies. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

So what searches have you done to ascertain that these subjects are not notable? Have you looked through print media for those years? Especially for 1995, before the great expansion of the internet? Or have you just Googled them? As I said, take them to AfD and see what others say. Prodding articles on topics that may clearly have a possibility of notability is really not a good idea. Note that I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether they are notable or not; I just don't like prodding being used as an alternative to proper debate. Most articles that are prodded clearly aren't notable. That is not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I had actually been through the newspaper archives and turned up little of significance beyond mere listings. I don't prod lightly which you seem to be implying is what I have done. If an editor finds reliable sources to establish notability they can either deprod on that rationale, or create/recreate the article. Your reason for deproding appears to basically be a variation on WP:IDL. But, what's done is done now. I'd suggest finding a more valid reason before deproding in the future than "I just don't like prodding .. as an alternative to proper debate." It is a valid Wikipedia procedure, like it or not. -- Whats new?^(talk) 11:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my rationale for deprodding. You should be aware that a prods can be removed by any editor for any reason (or none). That is also a valid Wikipedia procedure and I would point you once again to that phrase "uncontroversial deletion" in WP:PROD. I have no objection whatsoever to prodding on principle (and have used it myself many times) and I only deprod when I believe reasons for deletion should be further discussed and the proposed deletion is not uncontroversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ambassadors and High Commissioners.

The categories for Ambassadors and High Commissioners for countries that have been both in and outside the Commonwealth should be merged.

Among them is Ambassadors and High Commissioners from South Africa to the United Kingdom.

Other countries that this applies to are Fiji, The Gambia, Ireland, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe. - (119.224.80.18 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2017 (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 28 February, 2017 (23:59 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 won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic accent RM

You previously participated in a move request discussion of Mid-Atlantic accent. The proposal has been revived at Talk:Mid-Atlantic accent if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent category edits

Hello and thank you for your edits such as this to Hal_Ozsan. You may be interested in the similar cases identified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Recent category edits. I'm very willing to help out but it seems that you have the right tools for the job. Certes (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

English v. British -- Gia Scala

I see that you live in the UK. If you have a passport, on the cover does it say "British" or "English"? I'm pretty sure it says "British." English is a nationality, not a citizenship. Gia Scala was not English, she was Irish and Sicilian; however, her passport, which I have, says British. Please correct your error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.169.125 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

English is neither a nationality nor a citizenship, but a denotation of a country of birth. Since she was born in Liverpool, which, last time I looked, was in England, she was English! No error here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Move of United States Navy diver to Diver (United States Navy)

Hi Necrothesp, I see that you made the move in 2015. I have not been able to find the reason, but maybe you can remember. If so, please let me know, because to me the original name appears to be more appropriate, but there may have been a good reason I am missing. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Consistency. See Category:United States Navy ratings. This one was uniquely named. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to check, the term used officially for the subject matter of the current article is Navy Diver (ND). See https://www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/navy-diver.html There are other USN diver ratings such as Navy SEAL (SO), Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians (EOD) and Underwater Construction Team (UCT) Divers who are also divers in the United States Navy, but are not included within the current scope of the article. I seems to me that the original title was more appropriate than the current one, but there may be a better option yet of [[Navy Diver {United States Navy}]] or similar - other navies also have staff called Navy Diver, so the disambiguation is needed, and the proposed title appears to be adequately consistent with other articles in the category and uses the official designation. Do you have an opinion on this? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with Navy diver (United States Navy) (lower case), as this now appears to be the correct title for the specialisation. But United States Navy diver is obviously inconsistent with the titles of the other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun a bit. I re-read the article and it does mention the other ratings, so is probably good for the generic article about divers in the USN. However, the rating titles appear to be capitalised on the official USN websites and List of United States Navy ratings. I also find that the Navy Diver section in the List of United States Navy ratings is linked to [[Diver (united States Navy}]] which seems inappropriate. I will have to do some more digging on this one. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it may be capitalised in USN documents, but we don't capitalise such things. See Category:United States Navy ratings. All these would be capitalised by the USN. Our house style is not to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

So I see. I made the change and may do a bit of fixing up if necessary to make sure it stays in scope. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am curious, why not just Navy diver (United States)? bd2412 T 18:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Just consistency with other ratings. Doesn't especially bother me either way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Civil servants in the Scottish Executive

A tag has been placed on Category:Civil servants in the Scottish Executive requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^T 14:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 76.1 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

KAP03 (talk · contribs), Do you teach your grandmother to suck eggs? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Making Permanent Secretary more global

Hello!

I've been working on pages for permanent secretaries in Hong Kong and was wondering if you'd object to make the Permanent Secretary page less UK-centric? The difference and relation between Secretaries and Permanent Secretaries is not well known (here in Hong Kong, at least) and I was hoping to find a suitable page to wikilink to, but it seemed a bit odd to link to a page a British civil service position page. What would you think of changing the header to "The Permanent Secretary is the most senior civil servant of a ministry or bureau in the United Kingdom and several Commonwealth countries, charged with running the department on a day-to-day basis." We could bundle History, Role, Honours and Current under an In the UK header and then make separate subheads under Outside the UK for Sri Lanka, Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong and make a section called Equivalents for the rest?

I'll copy this message to the Perm Sec talk page.

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 04:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do NOT remove Speedy delete!

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Human Rights Foundation: On the contrary, if you continue with this then you will be blocked. You clearly have a WP:COI here and you speedy deletion tags are unwarranted. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: You just directly reverted the changes without taking a look for the reasons of the edit and request of speedy delete. I think you should be not admin and I notice others now about your actions. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'm tiring of you. Your "reasons" for calling for speedy deletion are utterly spurious. This is an article with multiple external sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: You just reverted and removed all comments I made on Human_Rights_Foundation where I clearly showed that that article should be deleted because of WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CITESPAM, WP:NOTADVOCATE which is WP:G11. I think you are very wrong and you should revert any changes you made. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You showed none of these things. You made a statement which was unsupported by the facts in an effort to get an article that you (for some reason) don't like deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I clearly stated after edits that the reasons of the edit are WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CITESPAM, WP:NOTADVOCATE and requested delete because of WP:G11 you not even reviewed the request just removed everything which is vandalism because hiding useful information from others by reverting my appropriate edits.Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And none of these are relevant, so you have no argument. Your removal of the citations is in fact tantamount to vandalism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Censor! DO NOT REMOVE SPEEDY DELETE REQUEST!

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I kindly ask you to justify your reasons of revert and blocking me from editing otherwise I notice other administrators that you censoring, reverting correct edits without any justification. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am tiring of you! See above. No censorship involved. You are being disruptive. I have no idea why you dislike this article so much, but this is not the way to go about editing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I repeat myself again. Maybe now you will get it: You just reverted and removed all comments (and edits) I made on Human_Rights_Foundation where I clearly showed that that article should be deleted because of WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CITESPAM, WP:NOTADVOCATE which is WP:G11. I think you are very wrong and you should revert any changes you made.

It is far not just rejecting delete you personally involved in vandalism. WP:VD Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of vandalism because I stopped your vandalism?! You are actually very amusing. Please continue to leave your illiterate comments on my talkpage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Vandalism is what you did after removing the speedy delete request because you just reverted all of MY changes to HIDE information relating why the article should be removed from Wikipedia. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, all you did was delete lots of perfectly acceptable citations. There is nothing wrong with a citation being from an organisation's own website. Actually read WP:SELFSOURCE before you cite it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Go back to Human_Rights_Foundation and read it! As I said and requested that article should be DELETED from Wikipedia. Reasons are (again) WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CITESPAM, WP:NOTADVOCATE and should be deleted under WP:G11 Do not argue because if you go back and check the source you will see except if you are blind. Example take a look to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Foundation#HRF_advocacy_campaigns_by_country Clearly WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:PROMOTION as well all cites are WP:SELFSOURCE as well WP:CITESPAM because pointing to different domains where same website available. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you are failing to understand these things. Detailing an organisation's work is not promotional as long as the article is written in a neutral way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Go to Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation and see "Requested move 17 May 2017" I will notice now other administrators and in a few hours also I call Wikimedia Foundation relating you. I highly recommend to revert and "unprotect" the page. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You do that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

HARASSMENT ON USER TALK PAGE

Hello, I'm Human Rights Foundation. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

I am tiring of you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Continue harassing me this user!

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. I said. DO NOT harass me! Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the harassment is yours, continually posting "warnings" on the talkpage of an admin who has protected an article and explained his reasons for doing so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: No. You are wrong. Because I posting a warning on your talk page it should never be considered as a harassment in any way. The reason why you have this notices however is clearly a harassment or I can say abuse of power. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So, I've harassed you because I've stopped you doing what you want to an article you don't like? I love it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This admin reverted all my changes removed page delete request and evidences of which supporting the deletion of Human_Rights_Foundation Human Rights Foundation (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Except there isn't and you've been blocked! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cracow złoty

Hi Necrothesp,

Since you participated in the Free City of Cracow RM, I want to let you know about an RM on Talk:Kraków złoty.

Genealogizer (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Raj Rajeshwar Saramad-i-Rajha-i-Hindustan Maharajadhiraja Maharaja Shri Takht Singhji Sahib Bahadur listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Raj Rajeshwar Saramad-i-Rajha-i-Hindustan Maharajadhiraja Maharaja Shri Takht Singhji Sahib Bahadur. Since you had some involvement with the Raj Rajeshwar Saramad-i-Rajha-i-Hindustan Maharajadhiraja Maharaja Shri Takht Singhji Sahib Bahadur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sade (singer)

Hi Necrothesp. I reverted your edit on Sade (singer) because the content you removed was the basis for including it in a lead paragraph. The lead should only summarize content in article body per WP:Lead. Mitchumch (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For such things as honours there is often nowhere else sensible to put them, as is the case here. Duplication serves no useful purpose. A separate section called Honours would be acceptable, although fairly pointless, but not the duplication you have added. The lead often contains things (such as full names and dates of birth) that are not elsewhere in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Why can't "honours" be mentioned in the "Awards and nomination" section? The entire lead is a summarized duplication of the article body. If by duplication you mean verbatim, then that only requires rewording. Full names and dates of birth are in the first paragraph of an article body along with place of birth and parents names. These are conventional elements on Wikipedia. Mitchumch (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not true at all. Date of birth and full name very rarely appear in the first paragraph of the article body and, in fact, should not so appear. So no, they are not conventional elements at all (I've been writing bios on Wikipedia since 2004). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

However, I've moved the honours to the awards and nominations section. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, what?? MOS:OPENPARA: "The opening paragraph should usually state... Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility))... Dates of birth and death, if known..." KDS4444 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Can you clarify the above for me? Am now very confused on this point. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Cathy Barry

Hi. The article on the glamour model/porn star Cathy Barry has been put up for deletion. I've added lots of referenced info (even though, it seemed obvious to me that she was very notable beforehand, but whatever) - I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the article and vote (either way). I would vote myself, but not sure if an unregistered IP would be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.109.128 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your iput and there vote was "no consensus". I notice a user called Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (who voted delete) when he realised there was no consensus to delete removed referenced info and since the result has removed loads of info. I don't believe secondary sources are necessarily always required for certain non-controversial facts - for instance, Barry regularly appeared on Men & Motors and there were official youtube clips and these have now been removed. Reference to her appearing on a BBC2 documentary that included several references including the actual documentart from a site who I believe were the producers has also been removed. There is no guideline that states youtube videos from official sources cannot be used. It seems this user is kind of vengeful (!) - seems sad you have to edit with/against users like this and there's no point engaging further.

78.145.176.95 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

PROD on Janata Dal (Digvijay)

Hi, I see you removed the BLP PROD I had placed on the article Janata Dal (Digvijay). I placed the prod because the article was a biography of a living person that contained no references of any kind— my understanding of PROD BLP was that this meant it was eligible for this special kind of deletion. Was I wrong on that? The article is a biography of a living person that contains no references of any kind... Perhaps it should have been speedied instead, as the subject is unremarkable (and that is how it has now been tagged by another editor). Your edit summary said that I gave no reason for the BLP PROD: when using Twinkle to perform such a PROD, an editor is in fact not given an opportunity to manually provide a reason because the reason is supposed to be added automatically by the templated text of the BLP PROD (something like, "This biography of a living person contains no references of any kind — all biographies written after date X must contain at least one reference or may be deleted...." etc.). Am just wondering what got mixed up there, 'cause I thought it was clear but maybe it didn't come out that way. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a biography; it's about an organisation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(Woah! Really?? I could have sworn it was a BLP. Guess I should have read it more carefully. Anyway, it's gone now. Cheers! KDS4444 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC))

Category:Armenian people of Iranian descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Armenian people of Iranian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hovhannes Karapetyan 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Royal Regiment of Artillery Units

You do not move categories without discussion. It has taken a lot of work to revert this undiscussed and incorrect move. Please do not do anything like this again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to the above I would point out two things, firstly you have yourself renamed categories without engaging in a discussion regarding it. I presume because you had valid reasons for doing so. I fully appreciate the work that has gone into this category, and other related ones, having both created pages and contributed to some in this area. With regards to your comment about this move being incorrect I would disagree. The Royal Regiment of Artillery is the official name for the Regiment in the British Army that consists of the Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery branches, denoted by the RA and RHA at the end of the regiments in question. Previously it also consisted of the now defunct Royal Field Artillery and Royal Garrison Artillery branches. If you are discussing both the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery then Royal Regiment of Artillery would be correct. I'm a serving officer in the regiment and so have not pulled this out of my proverbial backside. Happy to discuss given the rather vehement message you left on my page.Cunobeline (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cunobeline: No, I have never renamed a category without discussion. I have renamed many articles, but not categories. Renaming a category incorrectly leads to considerable work to correct it. I am fully aware of the history of the Royal Artillery (incidentally, it was still commonly referred to as the Royal Artillery as a whole even when split into the RHA, RFA and RGA - nobody has ever commonly referred to it as the Royal Regiment of Artillery, official name or not). I am also fully aware of our naming conventions (e.g. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCAPS). You, clearly, are not. I am also puzzled as to why you renamed a category for regiments to one for units in general, when such a category already existed. Please discuss anything like this before doing it again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

École nationale supérieure des ingénieurs en arts chimiques et technologiques

Why did you change this? I am aware that there is an old-fashioned French grammar idea that organizations should have lower case apart from the first. However, the institution itself uses capital letters. [17] Why should English Wikipedia be different? Please put it back. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

See the RM at Talk:École nationale d'ingénieurs de Saint-Étienne, which is relevant here as well. However, you are correct that the organisation itself uses this capitalisation, so I shall rv. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

New discussions on Catholicism and Catholicity

Hi, I saw that some time ago you participated in discussions regarding Catholicism and Catholicity on the page Talk:Catholicism (term). Recently, some of those discussions have been reopened, and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Cracow move request

You recently participated in a discussion of the title of Free City of Cracow. A similar discussion is now being held at Talk:Grand Duchy of Cracow if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  02:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Casualty characters and List of Holby City characters

Hi, Necrothesp. I thought I would come to your talk page about this as @Soaper1234: is now having to revert edits made by the user @CanadaDyr: on the List of Holby City characters page now. I was not sure if you kept an eye on the Holby City page too, but I thought it would be worth making you aware of the situation nevertheless, in case the vandalism begins on this article now, instead of the Casualty one. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the situation with the user has been going on for a long time and is very irritating. The user has persisted to vandalise both pages and I am aware of the warnings you have already given the user. Thank you for your help, Soaper1234 - talk 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode and Soaper1234: I've warned him for that page as well. If there are any further disruptive edits on either please let me know in case I don't spot them. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The user has vandalised yet again so I have warned him on his userpage. I thought I ought to let you know anyway :) Soaper1234 - talk 07:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Canadadyr here. How do I use sandbox? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaDyr (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

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

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

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

We really appreciate your input!

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

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

Jim Wallace (Australian activist)

On 27 June 2017 you converted the Jim Wallace (Australia) to Jim Wallace (Australian activist) - thank you. As the word 'activist' in Australia is synonymous with those advocating left-wing causes, it looks out-of-place for a Christian conservative. He might be described in Australia as a lobbyist. Refer Lyle Shelton (lobbyist) from the same organisation. Is it possible to re-label the page as Jim Wallace (Australian) or Jim Wallace (lobbyist)  ? AmgisFriend (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@AmgisFriend: Well, we don't use countries alone as a disambiguator for people, either as a noun or adjectivally. But I'm happy to use lobbyist. However, rereading the article, would "soldier" not be better, given that was his main career and given he reached brigadier rank? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your understanding. Either "soldier" or "lobbyist" - possibly "soldier". again thank you AmgisFriend (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Native Americans#Requested move 18 September 2017

What are your further thoughts on this? (Respond at linked page). I've posted some dictionary entry links you might want to take a look at. The Transhumanist 17:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in an earlier requested move for this article, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Constantine

Re this edit, fair enough. Sorry if I came across as snappy, but it seems that every October, this article attracts attention that isn't always welcome. My preference would be to leave it out, but I'm not particularly concerned either way and am far from an expert on post-nomials. I apologise for any abruptness! Sarastro1 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. We always include postnoms in British and Commonwealth biographical articles, since that is the correct form. I too have deleted many instances of "Kt", because this simply isn't used. Knights Bachelor have no postnominals (since the honour long predates their use) and if ennnobled there is no obvious indication that they ever have been knighted, although some editors do not seem to accept this fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

On removing pages

Thanks for preserving the page of E. Suger, he was also a presidential candidate, among other public appearances. Even though I do not agree on his political views; I value the fact of his notability.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy turkey day

Northamerica1000 is wishing you a happy Thanksgiving. If you don't celebrate Thanksgiving, don't forget that "Any time is turkey time" (see image). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

HMICFRS

Hello, I see you have reverted my move of HMIC to HMICFRS? I may have missed why you have done this. HMIC is now HMICFRS so the title is wrong, no? Regards Bowchaser (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It appeared that HMIC amalgamated with HMFSI to form HMICFRS. In this instance we should have a new article and preserve the previous two as part of the historical record. However, it does appear that HMIC has just taken over HMFSI's responsibilities, which is rather unusual and odd. I've therefore reverted my edits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yep, very odd that they have taken on the HMFSI rather than merge. An expanding empire methinks but that is not for wikipedia! Bowchaser (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, we all know what Winsor's like! Likes playing at being a police officer! Now apparently wants to play at being a fire officer too! I wonder which uniform he'll wear next time he tries to pretend to represent anyone at the Cenotaph? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me started about him and his leader! Systematically destroying some brilliant organisations, they have no idea of what they do...but must remain encyclopedic! Bowchaser (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Necrothesp. 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)

Jack Churchill, or whatever the hell you've momentarily decided to call him

Just stop with the endless moves. Take it to the article talk page. Your behaviour is disruptive and profoundly unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: May I suggest you refrain from addressing such insulting guff to an experienced editor and reassess your patronising attitude. Accusing me of disruptive behaviour is verging on breaking WP:NPA. There is nothing disruptive or unhelpful whatsoever about attempting to reach a sensible name (since any redirects will be changed by the bots I frankly fail to see what your problem is!). I moved it once from a name that was not in line with our policies, but decided that could be improved and moved it again. Another editor than moved it to a third title, but used the wrong dash for a date range. The current title is certainly better than the first one, using a name he didn't use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest you refrain from addressing such insulting guff to an experienced editor and reassess your patronising attitude. The bots do not always catch up with moves, as I had already noted on the article talk page. You had not bothered to update either the dab page or the template, and you had not bothered to engage in any discussion about your moves. In future, please gain consensus for a move on the talk page. Just because you are an admin does not exempt you from behaving properly, and I resent the bullying tone of your reply, a clear case of you using your status to try to silence criticism. There is no need to ping me, I do have a watchlist. It is not a personal attack to point out when behaviour is disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm insulting you. That's very, very rich indeed. And you're still being patronising. Try to avoid it, please. It doesn't do you any favours. "a clear case of you using your status to try to silence criticism". What a load of utter tripe. Did I mention the fact that I'm an admin? No, that was you. And since when did moves become illegal without being discussed on a talk page first? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You moved after a request on the talk page to hold back on any further moves. That clearly is improper. Multiple moves because you changed your mind are also a clear sign that the name needs discussion, not unilateral action. If you want to take this any further, then take me to ANI. In the meantime, just slow down will you? You are not infallible, you are not always right, and other editors are entitled to point out to you, regardless of your "experience" when they honestly believe that your behaviour is being disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So you'd rather it stayed at a name with an incorrect dash in the title? That's ridiculous. "Disruptive behaviour" is an accusation usually leveled at inexperienced editors and vandals, as you know very well. When aimed at somebody who's been here as long as I have it's highly patronising. How did you think I'd take it? I think this discussion is at an end. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe Gov't Departments

There is nothing notable on the articles referring to the Zimbabwe government departments as they simply say "Home affairs is responsible for home affairs" etc. Unless you are willing to update the articles with the relevant information, please restore the deletion notifications which you have removed without informing me (which you're meant to do, its good practise). -GH (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have deprodded the articles. Under WP:PROD I am entitled to do so for any reason and the prods may not be restored. Neither do I have to inform you that I have done so (any more than you have to inform the creator you'd prodded them, which as far as I can see you did not do). If you're so desperate to get them deleted then take them to AfD. However, I would point out that while they are not good articles now, stubs are perfectly acceptable and government departments are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, do not accuse me of vandalism for an acceptable deprod. Read WP:PROD before you throw such accusations around. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm GippoHippo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. There are two articles referring to Cabinet Of Zimbabwe, this article is irrelevant please read the reasoning behind deletion requests before you go on an edit spree. Also referring to your last comment. I'd rather you weren't so arrogant, I simply asked you to contribute to the articles, not attack me. Also as per Wikipedia policy, DO NOT edit your comments after I have read them. (You've done it twice now, last warning). Thank You. –GH (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have reported you to the administrators because you still did not read the deletion request. You aren't even an editor on the Zimbabwe articles usually, so please DO NOT come into an area which I am knowledgeable about and try and act like you know more than I do. Good Day to you sir. -GH (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Good faith edits are ‘’’not’’’ vandalism. Users can remove prod templates if they believe an article should not be deleted. That’s the whole point of prod. Accusing Necrothesp of vandalism for this can be considered a personal attack or harassment. I suggest you strike your warning above. Additionally, how was he to know whether you had or had not already read his reply? To edit a statement after someone has responded is poor form; to do so before they have responded is not. And you’re saying HE is arrogant, yet you’re here saying you’re more knowledgeable than him so he should back off. Seems pretty arrogant to me. If you continue in this vein (restoring removed prods, wrongly accusing others of vandalism, acting like you have ownership of particular articles or subject areas) you will find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. only (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@GippoHippo: You appear to be new here. Would you please read such guidelines/policies as WP:PROD, WP:AGF and WP:OWN before you start throwing accusations around. It will make your Wikipedia life much easier and less confrontational. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I made the necessary changes, don't dare accuse me of being confrontational you arrogant swine. I do not wish to communicate with you again. GH (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Very pleased to hear it. You're lucky I'm not blocking you for a personal attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked him, though. He’s been warned about this kind of behavior before so I’ve given him 24 hours. only (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspected you might. Probably wise. Let him cool off. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry

GippoHippo (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Apologies for the misconduct yesterday. GippoHippo (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Accepted. No grudges here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability policies

I just read your statement on notability policies and found myself in near total agreement. In fact the only point of divergence I have with what you wrote is that while you "almost get the feeling that there is a minority of editors who gain great satisfaction from getting articles deleted," I definitely get that feeling. There is a certain sort of fellow who is more interested in fabricating endless rules and lording it over others rather than quietly getting on with contributing to the task in hand. Not all deletionists work from that motivation but those who do seem to have rather a lack of moral fibre. The whole notability policy farm seems to be out of control but I don't know what can be done about it. If you have ideas then please do let me know. Otherwise, I am happy just to pass on my support to you in what you write. Greenshed (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aglaophotis

The article Aglaophotis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

OED says this plant exists in legend only. Its only notability derives from mentions in video games. The subject is not encyclopedic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Aglaophotis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aglaophotis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aglaophotis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rhadow (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination). The discussion has been reopened:) Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion dealing with Burma/Myanmar Railways

An article that you may have been involved in editing—Myanmar Railways—has been proposed for merging with Rail transport in Myanmar. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Somehow, we do not seem to be going well together at the DRVs. I apologize if any of my comments came across as insulting to you.Hope, that the cute beast resolves our differences:)

Winged Blades^Godric 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Akan (bibilical figure)

Back on 20 Dec, this redirect was deleted at your request. You pointed out - corrrectly - that it was an implausible typo; that was my mistake, I had intended to create Akan (biblical figure). However, what concerns me is that it was deleted without any notification to me, the creator, and without any check whether it was in use (it was, in one article). If I'd known. I would have agreed to the deletion, but also created the correct redirect and corrected the source article. I've now done both of these things, but only because I happened to notice that a previously good link had become a redlink. Surely the creator of a redirect should be informed before it's deleted? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is no requirement to inform a creator of this sort of deletion. However, I'm sure I thought I'd checked that it didn't redirect from anywhere else and if I failed to do so then I apologise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Governors of Kenya has been nominated for discussion

Category:Governors of Kenya, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Is "pączki" an English word?

Hi, thank you for your participation in the recent requested move discussion at Talk:Pączki. I've posted a follow-up question to better understand what the result of that discussion means not only for the article's title, but also for its content. I'd be very greatful, if you could reply at Talk:Pączki#Follow-up: is "pączki" an_English_word? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Katrina Mitchell

Katrina Mitchell, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Katrina Mitchell and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Katrina Mitchell during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award you the Original barnstar for writing this helpful essay.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability Railway Stations Comment

I had recently nominated a couple of articles on Railway stations in India Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghatkesar_railway_station to be deleted under the guidelines given by Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). You had commented Keep on one of the articles stating that there is a long standing consensus on Keeping Railway stations. I disagree on this logic especially on Railway stations in India as if this is the case then more than 9400 separate articles are warranted. (Excluding suburban which if included will add more than 1000 to the list) Most of these stations are nothing more than a construction on a track which is not serviced by most of the long distance trains and serve only as stops for slow local trains. None of these minor stations will pass WP:GNG and including them will go against WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Since you have been wading in Wikipedia for ages while I am still a newbie I wanted to discuss this in your talk page so that I can understand the rationale under which we divert from the guideline and the WP:GNG concept. Even if the stations need to find a place in Wikipedia they could be a list under the respective State of India or part of the zonal articles under Indian Railway Zones. Stations which have significant mentions in third party sources can like {{Kozhikode_railway_station|Kozhikode Railway Station]] and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station as they are independently notable as both of them are covered in reliable sources for something unique with them like here http://indianexpress.com/article/india/kozhikode-railway-station-cleanest-nizamuddin-gets-lowest-ratings-survey-5020896/ Hagennos (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hagennos: You will note you are quoting from an essay, not a guideline. It has long been considered at AfD that all railway stations are notable. In fact, I have never seen a single station article deleted at AfD. This is what forms consensus and precedent for notability, not a random essay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You for the clarification Hagennos (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

AN

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is pretty clear consensus at that thread that you should not be implying or invoking WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfDs, or as an reason for any kind of deletion issue, including dePRODing. This is a friendly notice asking you to please stop.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

All I can say is that it is a sad day for Wikipedia when an editor is no longer allowed to express an opinion. I would also point out that you have just apparently informed me that the rules of deprodding have changed - what happened to any editor having the right to deprod for any reason? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of any rule change for dePRODing. That said, (as I said in that discussion) I think that secondary schools should be considered notable but I can't argue about SCHOOLOUTCOMES anymore as it appears we both are in the minority now. I just avoid the AFDs unless I look and can dig up some references. It's a matter of consensus changing over the years. Assuming you just found out about it, I wouldn't expect any future issues. Wikipedia has a whole crew of people that seem to enjoy creating RFCs and new rules more than articles. I find it difficult to keep up with all the changes at times, so understand it is very possible you didn't know. I didn't know about the RFC until well after the fact, or I would have participated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't just found out about it. I've always argued against it. The RfC, which I did take part in, was deeply flawed and its results misinterpreted both by the closers and by those who have continually cited it ever since (including a couple of admins who spoke vocally against secondary school notability at the RfC and yet still insist on closing school AfDs by clear supervoting). They know it's controversial as well as we do. I'm not alone in this; a number of editors continue to argue that the RfC is controversial and does not override consensus formed by many knowledgeable people over many years and hundreds of AfDs, but we are always shouted down by the vocal editors doing the shouting yesterday. I agree with you wholeheartedly about some editors preferring bureaucracy to expanding Wikipedia. I would add there are also a significant number who seem to delight in getting articles deleted; unbelievably, I have even seen some of them (including a couple who took part in the discussion yesterday) congratulating each other on their talkpages on getting articles (decent articles on notable topics, not rubbish) deleted, which just makes me question their motives more. But, it seems to be an unwinnable battle, so I shall stay away from school AfDs in the future. They're just not worth the hassle, as they generate a bizarre amount of unpleasantness which is unique in my experience on Wikipedia. Don't be surprised if articles on well-known schools, colleges and universities start getting deleted, though, as the deletionists gain confidence in their ability to drive away any who oppose them and most other editors just stand by and let it happen. Thanks for your support. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur fully with Necrothesp. There is a clearly a number of users, probably deletionists, who are not aware of the many exceptions to notability guidelines, exceptions which incientaly do not only include various educational institutions. These exceptions are documented and are have been widely acccepted by the community for many years, as demonstrated in hundreds of AfD closures thus establishing clear precedents which we observe. Perhaps DGG may also wish to chime in here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not correct that there was a very clear consensus at the AfC--on anything. It's not even true that there was a consensus at all, what the closing consisted of, was two mutually contradictory findings of non-consensus. On the one hand, they found there was no consensus that merely quoting SCHOOLOUTCOMES was a sufficient argument for keeping at AfD. On the other they found there was no consensus to change the practice that all high schools (and colleges) were considered notable. One can certainly quote Schooloutcomes if one likes, and then supplement it with the argument, but I find it simpler to not mention that phrase at all unless it was previously cited, and just repeat the basic argument--that in the last 8 years we have almost never deleted an article on a high school with demonstrated real existence unless there was some special reason. (By "almost never" I think it was 2 or 3 aberrant AfDs among hundreds).

That AfD, and the incorrect close against consensus, was one of those random events, and should be ignored. I am not going to take it to deletion review--frankly, it is best forgotten. Rearguing an individual case doesn't help--continuing to argue each case as it comes up is what helps. Ditto for the AN discussion. This is WP, and we are not known for consistency.

Necrothesp, please don't stay away--the better reaction when people try to win by chasing away supporters is to hold firm. Don't give in to bullies. Just do it in the way I just worded it above. In 11 years, I have only known one admin sanctioned for making inclusionist arguments--and that was because he got frustrated enough to use a a sockpuppet.

I will try to do my part in noticing the AfDs more carefully--my only excuse is that this has been an exceptionally difficult 2 weeks for arb com.

Dennis Brown, we are not in the minority about the actual outcomes--not unless you let the bullies magnify the importance of the discussion, which is what I think you did here.

Needless to say, anyone may deprod for any reason, good or bad, and nobody may replace it. The recourse for an irrational removal of a prod is AfD. Unless something falls under speedy, anyone has the right to ask for a community decision at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG, you can surely do better than characterising the participants at the AN thread as bullies.Mind your language.But, agree about PROD.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

perhaps I am expressing my regret--almost my guilt--at not having been there. I can't really say it better without being personal. Please don't tempt me. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a very clear case here for questioning Dennis' closure of that RfC. It was only open for 2 hours which denied a lot of people an opportunity to speak. Although I commented further up on tbis talk page, I and many others were not even aware of the RfC. IMO the closure was a unilateral act and a supervote of sorts while the consensus at the time was convenient for such a close. This is more of a concern than anything that the RfC itself was about, whatever anyone's feelings are about school notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• It was open 12, not 2, and I knew closing would be a bit controversial for some but there were too many pitchforks and torches for the issue. It isn't a secret I support SCHOOLOUTCOMES being the guideline and have at AFD, and don't think the VP was a representative RFC, but it is the best we have. So the close was simply to keep the discussion from degrading even more, and I believe it accurately (and objectively) reflected the consensus. Perhaps it is time to revisit SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and by all means, ping me if you do as I would love to participate this time. That discussion was not the place to debate the validity of the RFC, however, as that has already been established. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've rarely seen such an orchestrated bullying of an admin whose views on school notability are actually shared by quite a few admins, me and DGG included. We were denied the opportunity to chime in there but the irony is that neither of us particularly clings ferociously to 'outcomes' - what we do strive for however in the absence of a clear ruling (and that particular RfC that every one cites was everything but clear) is consistency, and we have that through the very precedent that is tacitly observed and which is merely reported in the blameless 'outcomes' page. Anyone can see that that famous RfC was completely toothless and it doesn't need a PhD in English to know that that there was no consensus whatsoever. The closure was an ambivalent farce. What the RfC that you closed, Dennis, has demonstrated, is that there are more people with a pure tendentious agenda against school articles than we thought, even without the Big Wind's persistent unsavoury comments and occasional disruption of AfD by sending whole rafts of schools to it for the sheer heck of it (they all get kept). If they ridicule our system and take a dozen of us admins to Arbcom for citing (or inferring) 'outcomes', the outcome (pun intended) would be rather interesting. No, there have been so many RfC about schools that any more will also taper off into nothingness, leaving us yet again, and even more ironically with the one thing that makes consistent sense: the one that is documented in 'outcomes'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• • I agree with you and DGG on school notability, actually, and have participated in my fair share of school AFDs and even closed a few. It wasn't an RFC that I closed, but a gathering of pitchforks and torches at AN. It was purely drama prevention. Again, start a new, actual RFC and I would be happy to participate and support automatic notability for secondary schools. Until then, I'm kind of stuck supporting the existing RFC to at least a point. My own opinion didn't enter into the close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

btw, I do not support automatic notability for secondary schools; I support treating them as if they were notable in order to avoid these arguments. There's a difference. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC) .

to expand a little on my choice of words: Trying not just to win the argument but disable the opponent, bullying is the closest word for it. Trying to remove an admin for disagreeing with the interpretation of a RfC close about a guideline is bullying. Trying to magnify the issue to calling an opinion about a guideline into "a misstatement of policy" -- Bullying is again the closest word. I very much mind my language: I considered carefully what would be the best word compatible with the way I talk here. Dennis, did you not pick up on that misuse of "policy"? (I'm not going to reargue the original RfC now, or its interpretation. I've already said it on this page and elsewhere.)

But to be fair, what happened here was not unique. AN and ANI are susceptible to this sort of thing. That's why I almost never bring any issue there. That's why I'm not bringing this back there; that's why I'm not asking for a re-close. That's why I'm not bringing a case against the instigators of the bullying.

This is not really a good place for further public discussion. The place and time is at the next schools afd. I don't even support bring this one to Del Rev, because it will just increase rancor. I don't even support a new schooloutcomes AfC, because the result is likely to again be nonconsensus--AfCs are susceptible to a forced nonconsensus by those trying to win at all costs. The other matters raised here I think are best simply treated as aberrant. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeomanry article

Hi. Thanks for your input on the Yeomanry->Yeomanry Cavalry page move request. It's clear that this was an inappropriate move and I've withdrawn the request. I do, however, believe that separate articles are justified and, following a discussion with one of the other contributors to the page move discussion, have begun a discussion about reverting the Yeomanry article to its original state, and splitting off the work I have done into a separate Yeomanry Cavalry article. I would welcome your opinion on this. Factotem (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity

Which part of Cov? I'm in Cheylesmore.

I can claim responsibility for two Cov-related articles: Stonebridge, West Midlands (I think I managed to avoid any WP:OR about sitting in traffic jams) and Topshop (workshop). Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the edge of Earlsdon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)