Jump to content

User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 13

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

archiving gone wrong?

[edit]

I don't think you intended to use the odd double system of User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 12/Archive 7? Fram (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No idea what happened there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes I do! Sorted anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bulgarian emigrants to England

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bulgarian emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this category might have been emptied. You might know who should be in it. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom standard notice

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a weapon ?

[edit]

I don't think this [1] make sense. Why people are using AfD is a weapon? VocalIndia (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage titles and honorifics: MOS amendments

[edit]

I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Palace Rooms

[edit]

[2] Whatever were you thinking of? This page is part of an entire category of rooms and features of one of the world’s greatest (in every respect) buildings. To move a page without even a hint on the talk page is beyond unethical. It even has a template linking to them all, did you not even bother to look at it? Giano (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should all be moved, as it's completely unintuitive and poor English of the sort I've seen many times in articles on Eastern European subjects written (and named) by Eastern Europeans. Given there are no other Jordan Staircases, per our guidelines it does not need any sort of qualifier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Azerbaijani emigrants to England

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Azerbaijani emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timothy J. Edens for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timothy J. Edens 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/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Belizean emigrants to England

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Belizean emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yemeni emigrants to England

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Yemeni emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Azerbaijani emigrants to England

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Azerbaijani emigrants to England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a dispute about this category, you need to discuss it with Rathfelder who is removing pages from this category. At least that is why my installed script shows. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allahbad name change

[edit]

You have supported a name change for Allahabad, yet you provided contradictory claims on the name change from Allahabad to Prayagaraj. You stated "As with most Indian name changes like this, the common name even in India remains the old name". Can you provide further incidence where your claim occured? To refute your baseless claim, ill provide examples that you conveniently left out. precedence exist in the name change from "Bombay" to Mumbai, and Calicut to ""Kolkata". Could you link examples of your claim? Vajra Raja (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not supported a name change. I have supported retaining the current name. Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai are the only instances of such a name change being widely accepted in the wider world. See Talk:Bangalore, for instance. Eleven attempts to change the name have failed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Czech emigrants to Egypt

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Czech emigrants to Egypt indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Egyptian people of Czech descent

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian people of Czech descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Downey

[edit]

Hi Necrothesp, nice to meet you. I'm looking for some help with an edit request at Talk:Roma Downey and see that you've edited her page in the past and are generally active in this field. Was hoping you might be willing to take a look. Thanks for your time! Franklyspeaking2008 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

[edit]

For short articles like Botallack Manor, I don't see the value in adding infoboxes. Infoboxes make the image smaller by default, and end up taking up 2 or 3 times as much page space as the text itself (on desktop viewing). As MOS:INFOBOXUSE says that infoboxes are not mandatory, I don't see the benefit to putting one on this article. The article itself already says it's Grade II* listed, the link to the listing is already in the article, and the co-ordinates could just be added. So I see no value to an infobox in this case, as it seems to me to be a net negative to articles like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary. Given there is already a photo on the page, I don't think the infobox is a problem. Can we compromise by removing the map? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value, when everything in that infobox is already in the article. All it does is add clutter. And my understanding of MOS:INFOBOXUSE is that as there's no consensus to use/not use infoboxes in articles, the creator should "pick" whether to use it or not, same as with which English variant to use. Is that not correct? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that you don't own the article? Your decision as creator is neither here nor there. Infoboxes have been added by other editors to many articles I've created (as I don't tend to add infoboxes to articles I create either); I've never objected to them. Incidentally, one valuable feature of infoboxes on historic buildings is that people can instantly see that they're notable, as there are a number of editors who like deleting articles about historic buildings. If it's immediately apparent that it's listed then hopefully they'll move on and find another target. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:OWN. But if there's no consensus on whether infoboxes should/shouldn't be used, surely there needs to be some sensible way to decide when to use them or not to stop people edit warring them in or out of articles? I don't see a guideline for when they should/shouldn't be used, and obviously their use is subjective (since you think it's useful on this article, whereas I don't). So I'd assumed it was like ENGVAR that the creator could just choose i.e. if they add one, don't edit war to remove it, and vice versa. I'm not going to edit war to take it back out again, but I think it's silly if people are able to just add/remove infoboxes according to what they feel about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

[edit]

Please read my arguments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonderkommandos_of_Einsatzgruppen and reconsider your conclusion. Slav70 (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets articles

[edit]

Hello. I saw your comment in the recent AfD discussion on a baronetcy singleton article.

I got involved in this area last year, when convenient heraldry software became available. I was struck by the extent which the baronets articles consist of bare lists of baronets, poorly referenced and with a minimum of the supporting information that could be hoped for (descents, spouses and general family history; seats, mottoes and so on). Major sources, such as the Official Roll of the Baronetage, and Who Was Who which turns out to be on my library card, are not well used.

The impact on my work with images was that putting several escutcheons on a page in sections has the feeling of cramming things in; while a gallery display would break the link to the creation. Generally, I'd say that bringing coverage up to anything like what you'd find in Debrett or similar sources is discouraged by the one creation/one section format.

There is a further issue with categorising by creation and extinction dates, using the "establishments" and "disestablishments" categories. It can't be done on the aggregated pages without confusion.

So, I recognise that work here from early on used the aggregated format. At least one of the major contributors, Tryde, left quite some time ago. There can be a fair amount of "ribbon development" in this area, with snippets of family information added, not that well organised and usually rather vaguely referenced.

I'm a firm believer in working over existing content. Both for the expansion and the better control and display of what we host on baronetcies, I believe the disaggregated format is the way to go. I'm concerned to add value as I edit, rather than seeing splits as an end in themselves. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh people of Ghanaian descent has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Welsh people of Ghanaian descent has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 22:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh people of Guinean descent has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Welsh people of Guinean descent has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 22:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Sutton date of death wrong

[edit]

Colin did not pass away in 2004. He was alive for the trail and had a blog until 2017. I see no recent date of death listed anywhere I have looked 2600:6C5D:5900:1517:94FE:DCD5:F946:5840 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, do you ever give up? I assume you're referring to the Colin Sutton who investigated Levi Bellfield etc. Yes, he is still alive. He held the rank of Detective Chief Inspector. The Colin Sutton who was an Assistant Commissioner in the Met died in 2004. It says so in Who Was Who! He was born in 1938 and hadn't been a chief inspector since he was promoted to superintendent (in Warwickshire Constabulary) in 1972! I have pointed this out to you multiple times. Why can you not accept that there were two prominent officers with the same name in the Met?! All you need to do is read the article about AC Colin Sutton, which you appear to be signally incapable of doing, to determine the differences between them. But, in case you're still confused (as I unfortunately suspect you will be), THIS IS NOT THE SAME PERSON!!! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:English people of Omani descent

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:English people of Omani descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plains Indian Warfare

[edit]

Hi -

I see what you mean. As an administrator, do you have the option to walk the changes back so that the page history is preserved? Vizjim (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Britain

[edit]

Just letting you know that the Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme) talk page is still located at Talk:Good Morning Britain (TV Programme) and needs moving to align stuff back up. -- AxG / ✉  18:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a genuine, recognised and separate settlement."

[edit]

I saw this appear in a few recent AFD !votes of yours. I don't have anything against that, but I'm unsure about it for stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lponga. The sources in the article are all irrelevant to the article subject (part of why the page creator was indeffed for continued fake referencing) no sources have been added to the discussion during the AFD. It seems a bit bold to reach to the assumption that GEOLAND is met when we haven't been able to even clear the WP:V bar, because none of the sources brought forward so far are suitable for proving that it actually exists. Hog Farm Talk 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map proves it exists! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History‎

[edit]

Hi, you dePRODded this article because no reason was given. Actually, it looks like Piotrus made a coding error so that his rather detailed PROD reason was only visible if you look at the code. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still think it needs to go to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stephen Jolly (disambiguation)

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stephen Jolly (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic contestant notability

[edit]

Hi there, you recently dePRODded an article on the grounds that all Olympic contestants are notable. That's an old guideline! The current one is that only medal winners are notable: WP:NOLYMPICS. I think this was changed relatively recently, in the last year or so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it was apparently in August. I wasn't aware of it and I'm sure many other editors aren't either. It really is a massive change to sporting notability guidelines and will open the floodgates to mass deletions. But thanks for letting me know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

[edit]

Hi, you removed the tag to delete the Vincent Palmer article so feel free to participate in the delete discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Palmer. Thanks.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start an AfD properly. Please see WP:AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish people of Hungarian descent has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Scottish people of Hungarian descent has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 09:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprods

[edit]

This may come as a shock to you, but some articles are bad or unverifiable enough that they legitimately deserve to be removed. It's good practice to actually try to understand the problem – which only requires you to bother reading the prod rationale and thinking on it for 10 seconds – before doing something. The creator of the 3 articles you deprodded in sequence has an extremely poor track record, and has left lying around dozens articles that at best are 100% trivial or just outright fail WP:V (examples here, here). It takes considerable effort to go through his contributions, see if his sources are available online, check them, and see if there is any merit to the claims he makes, and I'm the only editor in Wikipedia that is willing and capable to do so. So think twice before playing the armchair judge and handing out timewaster deprods with disingenuous reasoning (e.g. "seems to be sourced, contrary to claims in prod", even though I made it clear that I did consult the sources). Avilich (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it increasingly appears that some editors do not know the difference between when to use a prod and when to use an AfD. To enlighten them, a prod should only be used for blatant unencyclopaedic rubbish. An AfD should be used for anything else. Simply thinking an article is non-notable is not a good reason to prod instead of AfD. I would also remind editors that any editor can deprod an article for any reason or none. Something else that seems to be unclear to some. So I would suggest you get off your high horse and drop the arrogant attitude. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much of it was indeed unverifiable unencyclopedic rubbish, I explained so in the prod rationale, making it very evident that I did more than just 'think' this is the case. Actually, PROD says it's for 'uncontroversial deletions', but this implies that potential deprodders won't disingenuously oppose the prod just for the sake of it, and thus defeating its very purpose altogether. Nobody asked you or needs you to be the ultimate judge of the legitimacy of prods. If you or anybody else have actual content-based claims that delegitimize the prod rationale, then by all means share them, and deprod accordingly (technical details alone do not give you a moral license to act obstructively). Otherwise, don't do so, and Wikipedia will carry on existing just fine without your righteous crusade against deletionists, or whatever else you thought you were accomplishing. Avilich (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, a prod can be removed by any editor for any reason or none, as you should be aware. In actual fact, I remove very few prods, as most of them are correctly added. I did not consider that yours were, as the topics were not unencyclopaedic. Please do not assume that you have the monopoly on determining what should or should not be on Wikipedia. If you don't like a deprod then you are free to take the article to AfD for wider discussion. And kindly do not tell me what I can and cannot deprod. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

[edit]
A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Necrothesp! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Voting Twice on Qonce

[edit]

Hello Necrothesp,

I noticed you voted twice on the King William's Town move discussion page. Could you please strikethrough your second oppose? Thought you'd want to know because it didn't seem intentional. Desertambition (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability policies

[edit]

I read your commentary on notability on your user page and loved it. Thanks. And thanks for your work. CT55555 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Knaggs

[edit]

What's the reason for the revert please. Of the numerous reverts you've made against my changes, none have an edit summary. Seems like bullying to me. Dawnseeker2000 13:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked you not to change the wording on your talkpage. You responded with "Kick rocks cop", refused to discuss and continued regardless. There's no need for these changes and the form already used is the standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to not change the links because "it reduces the readability of the articles". Sorry, I do not believe you. Please discontinue reverting my changes or we can have a more visible conversation with the community. Dawnseeker2000 13:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said no policy, guideline or consensus mandated your changes. Please point me to the one that does. What good reason do you have for changing the linking in these articles? Frankly if all you can do is post an insult and carry on regardless I don't think you have much of a case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cypriot emigrants to Scotland

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cypriot emigrants to Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]

{{subst:ANI-notice}} Starship SN20 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents section 47 Starship SN20 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Terrace (Perth, Scotland)

[edit]

Would you say the above article is notable? I haven't yet started my short quest to find similar articles to Kinnoull Terrace, but I created the Rose Terrace article because i) it has a prominent location beside the North Inch and b) due to it consisting solely of notable buildings. I created the Kinnoull Terrace article for the same reasons (its elevated viewpoint across the Tay being one of them). Seasider53 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who (UK) RfC

[edit]

Hi, I've started a new topic on the Who's Who (UK) talk page which I think might prove to be useful regarding the recent RfC Piecesofuk (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

[edit]

Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it...

[edit]

Hi, it has been a while, but you reverted me here. I do not understand why, could you please explain? Ken Tukkie (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because there wasn't an article about him at the time and the addition appeared to be a substitute for an article, which is not what disambiguation pages are for. Now an article has been written about him he has been readded to the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ok thanks for explaining. So no red links on disambibuation pages. Got it! Ken Tukkie (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless it's absolutely certain that the person is worthy of an article. And even then not a substitute for an article (with full dates etc as this entry had). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

[edit]

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Order in lists

[edit]

Hi, is there a regulation about the order (alpha or chronological) in lists of names? Denisarona (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No regulation. But general practice has been to order chronologically. It's more user-friendly as it doesn't assume the reader knows what name or disambiguator we have used for an individual. A reader is far more likely to know approximately when someone was alive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better name for Page Korean-style fortresses in Japan

[edit]

Hello, on 20 October 2021, you said "Ancient mountain castle" was too generic for the page Korean-style_fortresses_in_Japan. The reason I proposed that was because its the Japanese page name. To make it more specific to Japan it could be named "Mountain fortresses in Japan" or "Mountain castles in Japan" or "Ancient Mountain fortresses in Japan". What do you think? -Artanisen (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication Request

[edit]

Hi there! I doubt you remember me but I gave you a Barnstar years ago for a page that you opted to userfy and maintain rather than see it disappear. A page that I was particularly fond of was deleted a few months ago and I wanted to know if you would be able to userfy it for me so that I can maintain it in my userspace. It's Living Presidents of the United States. I actually started one for Supreme Court Justices which is unlikely to go live now but it's a bit of a passion project for me, and I think it should exist in some form. Hope all is well! HarlandQPitt 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aqsa

[edit]

I don't want to fill up the RM thread, but your comment is simply wrong. Are you open to reconsidering if I can illustrate this to you? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comment is not simply wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can explain what I mean, but I want to ensure that you would welcome that. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but I don't agree with you. The term commonly refers to the mosque, especially when it has "mosque" attached to it. We don't need "mosque" appearing twice in the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I put Al Aqsa Mosque into google, it has the following automated suggested questions:
  • Why is Masjid Al-Aqsa so important?
  • Who owns Al Aqsa Mosque?
  • Why did Israel enter Al-Aqsa?
  • What happened in Al-Aqsa?
  • What does the Quran say about Al-Aqsa?
  • What does Aqsa mean?
  • What are the 3 holiest places in Islam?
  • Is Masjid Al Aqsa Dome of the Rock?
This is likely a reasonable cross-section of what average readers of our article are trying to figure out.
All of these questions are actually (intentionally or not) referring to the compound (Temple Mount), not the building at the southern end.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only one of those actually says Al Aqsa Mosque! And we do not title our articles according to what Google says! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Al Aqsa is an abbreviation, and Masjid Al-Aqsa a translation. They both mean "Al Aqsa Mosque".
The questions show clearly that the terminology is ambiguous.
It shows beyond doubt that when readers search for Al Aqsa Mosque, they will frequently be thinking of the Quranic significance (=> Temple Mount) or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dispute (=> Temple Mount).
Our policy says "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely — much more likely than any other single topic... — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Al Aqsa is an abbreviation, and Masjid Al-Aqsa a translation. They both mean "Al Aqsa Mosque". That's completely irrelevant to the fact that in English-language sources Al Aqsa Mosque usually refers to the mosque not the area. I'm not going to change my mind on this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...the fact that in English-language sources Al Aqsa Mosque usually refers to the mosque not the area
Are you certain? Google scholar usage would disagree.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the famous English economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?".
If you would like me to stop commenting here, I will do so.
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only change my mind if I am convinced by it! I am not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. I am confident that you will be convinced if you have the available time. I am hoping for another editor’s engagement with this comment, which you may not have seen. I think this evidence will convince you also if you are able to verify my claims. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance I could convince you to come and have another look at the discussion? We now have even more sources, and I am pushing for a clearer focus on the actual policy. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, please could I draw your attention to Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation)#Temporary addition of new piped redirects in order to assess outbound traffic from this disambiguation page. Are you happy that after a bit of time this would be a useful indicator of whether there is a primary topic for "Al Aqsa Mosque"? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBEs

[edit]

Hi Necrothesp. I imagine you must have a good source for all of today's new MBEs, CBEs and OBEs. I was just wondering why you haven't also added that source, at the same time, for each of those BLP additions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just easier to do it one stage at a time. Don't worry, the sources will be added. These are all from the official government list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I come with the same point: there are unsourced additions to blp articles hitting many editors'watchlists, with nothing to indicate that a source is forthcoming. Another time, if it's really too difficult to add a standard ref to your source in each edit, please use an edit summary which includes "will add source shortly" or similar. Perhaps process them a batch at a time, doing a run of "add postnominals" then a run of "add sources"? Thanks. PamD 04:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Bible Christian School and Faith Baptist School (Fort Pierce, Florida)

[edit]

Since you've deprodded Florida Bible Christian School and Faith Baptist School (Fort Pierce, Florida), are you willing to improve it or to come up with a redirect target? I would rather not waste everyone's time at AfD. I've already done BEFORE; I would never prod it if I thought there was significant coverage. I personally would suggest preserving the existing work by redirecting to Miami-Dade_County,_Florida#Education and Fort Pierce, Florida#Education. What do you think? Jacona (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps redirect Winter Haven Christian School and Oasis Christian Academy to Winter Haven,_Florida#Education? (I have not yet done WP:BEFORE on these, but they look like about the same likelihood. Jacona (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never support redirection of school articles to their locations. It is virtually unheard of for there to be no sources for secondary schools in English-speaking countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used to believe the same (for secondary schools, not elementary/middle schools), but since WP:NSCHOOL was gutted and now merely defers to WP:GNG, just the existence of sources is not enough, WP:SIGCOV is required. The consensus established in gutting NSCHOOL is that we are going to remove low-notability school articles, and these are the kind that are most likely to go. Rather than deletion, WP:ATD/R would WP:PRESERVE the content and its history (not that there is much in these to begin with.) The handwriting is on the wall. I'll give it a little while. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at AfD has generally remained that secondary schools in English-speaking countries are notable, despite regular attempts at deletion. Very few have actually been deleted and AfD remains one of the major venues at which notability consensus on Wikipedia is determined. The situation for schools in other countries is obviously different, which sadly does rather lead to WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some have been deleted. I think these likely would be. I would prefer a redirect....You are right about the bias. I don't want to put myself as the judge, nor the expert in finding sources in other languages/countries. Unfortunately, there are a lot of editors who falsely believe they do. Jacona (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weight at AfD

[edit]

Hi User:Necrothesp! I appreciate your participation at AfD, especially since we seem to be on the same side of discussions we both participate in. Do you think it would be possible to give more detailed explanations about why you choose your !votes? You often comment "Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any American secondary school", but not all the editors reading the discussion agree that any American secondary school is WP:N, and AfD is not decided by just votes. I'm concerned that closing administrators will not give equal weight to your votes, and as time goes on may even mentally automatically discount them, just as they generally do with editors who cut-and-paste a generic delete rationale on discussion after discussion. Your outcomes (which are pretty good) will probably be even better if you give a more detailed rationale, including things like a source or two you find convincing. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and wish you the best! Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Per WP:NEXIST sources only have to exist. They do not have to be in the article. They do not have to be online. My point is that it is virtually impossible that an American (or British or Canadian or Australian etc) secondary school will not have enough sources available to pass GNG. As far as I can see, only a committed deletionist who is not here to expand Wikipedia could disagree with this and we're never going to convince them. Over the years I have seen AfD becoming more and more of a battleground between them and the rest of us, and I sometimes despair for the future of Wikipedia as increasing numbers of them seem to appear. I do not understand their outlook and I'm afraid I never will. And I speak as someone who has deleted much rubbish over my years here, not as someone who (as I have been accused) wants to keep everything indiscriminately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with this…I think it’s more likely you will convince others with an explanation like this, explaining why most of these schools will be notable. I appreciate your help!Jacona (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Renner

[edit]

Thanks for your input on the AfD. It’s been closed as no consensus. The article has been improved but probably still needs some context for people not familiar with how police are organized in Germany. Could you add it (or could you nudge someone else to do it)? I think a sentence or two on that would greatly improve the impact of the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit?!

[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on Anglo-Egyptian War article? The term 'conquest' is obviously biased and is intended to hide the colonialist nature of the invasion. Why would an edit like that be reverted?! --Simsman333 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is "conquest" more biased than "occupation"? An "occupation" is a long-term thing. This was a war or conquest which led to an occupation and is usually known in English-language sources as either the Anglo-Egyptian War or the British conquest of Egypt, as stated in the article. "Conquest" is an entirely accurate and neutral term and not biased in any way. How about Turco-Egyptian conquest of Sudan (1820–1824) or Anglo-Egyptian conquest of Sudan? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Piero

[edit]

Hi Necrothesp! I've seen your comment on talk page of Piero Fornasetti but I'm missing something :) How can we proceed? Best! Dreamaker (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We simply leave the RM to run its course. It will be closed in due course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do better

[edit]

No more of this please. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the arrogant, insulting, rude, inaccurate and aggressive nonsense I was replying to following a polite and wholly reasonable request not to make unfounded accusations against another editor? Unbelievable! Please either leave messages such as this on the talkpage where they are deserved (I notice you have not done so) or do not leave them at all. As to your header here "Please do better", being patronising does you no favours. As I have said, given his appalling attitude (Redacted), I have no desire to have any further contact with Trainsandotherthings. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no excuse for getting into (and continuing) a slanging match. If you would rather I use standard user warning templates, please let me know. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have already said I have no intention of doing so. I left a perfectly reasonable message on his talkpage after he had left an unacceptable message on an AfD to which I had no chance to respond. It was him who started a "slanging match" (accusing me of being disruptive, of attacking him - which I have not, and of breaching good faith, and ending with "Now get off my talk page"), to which I stated I had no intention of further responding. And do not intend to do so. Second, I find it odd that you have left no such message on his talkpage, which shows clear bias on your part. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion on an AfD, which is all about opinion, and I do not take kindly to editors like Trainsandotherthings who suggest that I am not, apparently only because it conflicts with their opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike your personal attacks here or I will be bringing your conduct to ANI for community review. I cannot believe what you just said about me here. Totally unacceptable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, please don't make threats. They won't look good and you risk WP:BOOMERANG. I suggest you take steps to lower the temperature, not increase it. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"given his appalling attitude and obvious superiority complex" is a blatant personal attack. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As is "it is now very obvious that your arrogance knows no bounds." How could anyone think such behavior is acceptable from any editor, let alone an admin?! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified as to what "personal attacks" I have made against you. The personal attacks have all gone the other way. Maybe you should reread what you have written especially in reponse to my polite request not to make threats or accusations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have commented directly on Trainsandotherthings and their character, while none such comments have been made about you–only your editing conduct has been discussed. It's pretty basic civility policy that an admin should know. ––FormalDude talk 15:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the personal attack above, as you seem unwilling — you're welcome to the opinion that someone has an appalling attitude (though frankly I've found the attitude to be fairly appalling on both sides.), but please do not claim that someone has a superiority complex. That is a personal attack, and you will get blocked if you continue them here, on Trainsandotherthings's talk page, or elsewhere on the project. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to say that this has been very one-sided. I wonder if you have read the exchange on Trainsandotherthings' talkpage, where he posted I don't appreciate your condescending, "I'm so much better than you" attitude." Which I see as a personal attack, as I have shown no such attitude. I have merely disagreed with him on AfDs. He has continually attacked me for my opinions on notability (see User talk:Trainsandotherthings/Archive 3#Notability of train stations and the "full of shit" comment, which was directed at me, and also A certain editor has shown up to badger every single AfD, also directed at me, implying I have no right to take part in AfDs), yet accuses me of attacking him. Yet I'm apparently making a personal attack by saying he has a superiority complex. I never wanted this. I merely pointed out, politely enough as far as I can see, that accusing another editor of being disruptive and threatening sanctions against them for posting their opinion at an AfD was not acceptable. But, as I have said, I want no more to do with this editor. It was him who came to my talkpage to escalate matters. Strangely, along with other editors who have espoused similar views to him at AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation John Littlechild

[edit]

Hi @Necrothesp. I just completed citation in the page John Littlechild which you created without any refs. I have added all required citations. Kindly check and remove the banner. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make some edits on the page. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for doing that. When I created that article seventeen years ago, sourcing was not often added to Wikipedia articles and I've never got round to adding it since. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Necrothesp:, please help me in Draft:G Bidai. Subject person is well notable, as a simple Google search proves notability, but the draft is pending for more than 3 months. Will you help please? I am not connected to the person. As you know militancy, insurgency, terrorism, counter-terrorism, etc have been my favorite subjects to edit and I have done tons of citation in other articles with the same. Hope my request is not breaking any Wiki rule. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 16:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Necrothesp/Archive_13&oldid=1141079628"