User talk:Canterbury Tail

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages. Please make new comments at bottom of page.

Historic Archives


A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for clearing up the vandal for the Myanmar National Airline article. I was really confused when i found Myanmar National Airlines on the list of Boeing 777 operators. PatrickChiao (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
I think you earned your admin-salary today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's far from the worst I've had today, don't worry about it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you mentioned something about a salary? Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I heard it will be doubled. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Fantastic job. I see how well you have dealt with that difficult situations. Good work. Keep it up. Hajrakhala (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

[edit]

Thanks for the tips re adding Irish translations this evening. In relation to sources evidencing use of the relevant translation, you advised the following on Bar of Northern Ireland:

"It can't be someone else just referring to them, it need to support that the "Bar of Northern Ireland" has an official Irish translation that is used. If the Bar of Northern Ireland never uses it, then it's just something someone else translated."

This doesn't appear to be supported by WP:IMOS, which says:

"An Irish version of a subject's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that subject if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that subject. It may also be used in the appropriate field of an infobox. If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. The mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as dictionaries or databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used."

WP:IMOS appears to indicate that a statement by a Government Minister using the relevant translation of the name of a Professional Regulatory Organisation in an official government statement would be sufficient evidence of usage, and the source used in the reference doesn't have to be the organisation itself? Gatepainter (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However in your case it's a single mention, in a government of another country. And additionally the fact that it cannot be located outside one or two mentions also shows that it is not commonly used. Additionally it needs to be well known and commonly used, which for the Bar of Northern Ireland it clearly isn't. So a single brief mention, in a single publishing incident, by a government of a country the organization is not in is clearly not commonly used or well-known. It's apparent there isn't a commonly used Irish version of the name. Canterbury Tail talk 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the issue that I only gave one reference? I can add the Supreme Court website (http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/9A4957731840B6BC802574180042D6B0?opendocument&l=ga), the book 'An Ghaeilge sa Dlí' and other mentions. I presume the "commonly used" criterion refers to usage in the Irish language, rather than in English. Sources such as dictionaries or databases are identified as being insufficient, but I'm not proposing to use such sources.
Thanks for your assistance on this. Getting clarity will be helpful for editing other pages in future.
Gatepainter (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it's more there's no indication that the organisation in question uses it, acknowledges it etc and that it's not commonly referred to by it. It's a bit like taking someone's English name and translating it into Irish and saying it's their Irish name but the person doesn't have an Irish name. There's a difference between someone's name translated to Irish and their actual Irish name if you understand. If the organisation or individual themselves doesn't acknowledge or use the name then it's just a translation and it means they don't have an Irish name. If you understand what I'm saying. If we were writing this encyclopaedia in another language, obviously things would be translated, but this is the English language Wikipedia and to use a name in another language we need to show it's actually connected to them. Otherwise it's just what some others may call them which isn't the same thing. French Wikipedia would have a French version of the name, but it doesn't make it their name.
For instance it was a long period before we could add an Irish name to the Northern Ireland assembly because they weren't using it and never indicated in any way they had an Irish version of their name, no matter that Irish language sourced unconnected used it. However eventually they did issue publications with it which means they acknowledged that was their name in Irish and we could start referencing and including it.
Ultimately just because some person or organisation exists on the island of Ireland doesn't mean they have an Irish name. You can't just call someone or something something else unless there is evidence they do it or a significant number of others do and it's how it's commonly referenced. For example Paul Gascoigne was commonly called Gazza, that's common and easily sourced. Someone may have called him Pauly, but we can't support that it's significant or common.
Note you can also take this conversation to the talk page of WP:IMOS, would get more opinions on it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I can understand the nuance between the "organisation in question uses it, acknowledges it" point in your first paragraph versus the "significant number of others" point in your last paragraph, is it that a translation should only be included in an article if either the subject of the article itself uses/acknowledges it, or a significant number of others use it?
Gatepainter (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so yes. For instance someone, or something, could have a nickname that everyone calls it by and as a result that would come under a common name. Even if they don't like the nickname, if it's well sourced and can be proven to be a very common name then it would be okay, as long as it's not just a simple translation to another language and only used in that context.
Honestly though, I would take this talk to the talk page of WP:IMOS, there are a lot of good people there from all sides of the Ireland equation and you'll get some good advice and feedback on this topic. At the end of the day, I'm just one person's opinion and interpretation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Gatepainter (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clean-up at Gardiner Expressway

[edit]

I'm going to blame the cat for that random italic text! Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries, it was clearly an accident and not malicious or anything like that. Canterbury Tail talk 17:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republic of Ireland

[edit]

Just a heads up: re this, "Republic of Ireland" is not in the Irish Constitution, although it is prescribed by Irish statute law, i.e. the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doh thank you, trying to multi-task and doing everything badly. Many thanks for the heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 15:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of buses

[edit]

Please see my points on the discussion on my talk page regarding the general notability of buses in Baltimore. For anything related to the LocalLink 80 route in particular, the talk page for that article would be a better place for it. I will prioritize it since it has been highlighted first but bear in mind that there are quite a lot of topics to update, some related to this one, which will take some time. If you are wondering what makes the 80 distinct in short is that it is one of the most frequently running and highest ridership routes in the network despite not being functionally classified with the rest of the high frequency network, and the path the route takes itself is unique because of its deviation from the "spoke and hub" model of the network as well as going through a particularly unusual portion of the street grid and serving a number of neighborhoods that are not served by another route. (These neighborhoods, like many in Baltimore, are where the majority of the population does not drive. I would argue that this route has more relevance than most highway routes in Maryland, many of which are not even signed or referred to as highway routes. The bus argument might make more sense in cities that are more car-dependent.)

If there are any particular types of sources or information you would like to see in bus articles to improve them, let me know. I have a collection of print material on Baltimore bus transit, so I may be able to point you to something if you have a question that can't be answered with a Google search. (I scan them but PDF scans aren't ideal for search indexing even with OCR). --Middle river exports (talk) 02:24, 7 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) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neon-Noir reference

[edit]

"What unites the two movies across the decades is their common aesthetic, described as Neon Noir." (my emphasis) -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they link Neon Noir as a reference of what neon noir films are, and that doesn't support it. The main article you used as a reference isn't a notable writer or expert in this field (in fact we don't even know who wrote it) and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, it's one writer's opinion. Though I will note we've never had a discussion before on the reliability of that site. Canterbury Tail talk 16:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three more references (to my new wording). The article should ultimately have just one, but I'm hedging my bets. Plus I thought it would be easier for you to access them if there were links. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with MagicAllium

[edit]

Hello,

Although a long time ago now, you did once offer to help me with matters of understanding site policiy and I believe I could use that now. User MagicAllium has yesterday made an amount of disruptive edits such as removing content because it is 'lame' or removing entire sections because they disagree with the grammar. I posted warnings on their talk page but they just removed them all and didn't acknowledge it and attempting to talk to them on my talk page led to them not responding to any points being made. My understanding is that after this I am to turn to ANI which I have done but it had been 12 hours and no one has engaged with my posting there.

Do you have any advice as I can't see what else to do from here? Dubarr18 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so looking at the Navan page they're actually right. I would have removed that content as well if I'd noticed it, it's pure trivia and not encyclopaedic. Their comments could have been better, but the edit is actually fine. My advice would be to immediately take things to talk pages and not get involved in a reversion cycle. That being said they also should not be involved in an edit war either. So I've left a note on their page about that. However I will say that their edits all seem valid. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but in regards to their edits on the String of Pearls I can't see how those edits are valid, especially when the only reason being given is grammar issues and elsehwere they fixed and improved an identical section on other pages. In regards to talk pages I can attempt it in future but any attempt to add anything to their talk page has just had them ignore and remove it making it difficult to have any proper conversation. Dubarr18 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content they removed from The String of Pearls wasn't really about that book, but Penny Deadful's in general, and as a result shouldn't be in that book's article. There may have been a small piece that should have been saved, if it could have been referenced, but the bulk of it wasn't about the article subject. Oh and any editor is entitled to remove anything from their talk page, they do not have to engage. That's why the article talk page is often more useful. If there is a discussion on the talk page and an editor choose not to engage in it, then they don't get a say in establishing the consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 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]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]

Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 12:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Wishing Canterbury Tail a very Tail happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy summer/winter

[edit]
Sunshine!
Hello Canterbury Tail! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,help

[edit]

I was told to come to an administrator because I mistakenly removed edits on my user talk pages. They said only am admin can revert it. Please revert mine to show my user boxes thanks so much,and please ping reply,cheers.Uricdivine (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Names

[edit]

Dear friend, I noticed your comment on the Rory Gallagher (Gaelic footballer) page about the Irish version of names in the source code (and Gallagher is "Ó Gallchóir", a *very common surname in Ulster Irish). I don't know if this issue may not be a minefield, for 95% of names in Ireland have the original Irish version they came from. The pages for Liam Watson (hurler) and DJ Carey have the 'correct' Irish version ‐ certainly Watson's. During Irish-language commentary, I've heard these names, although those people may only occasionally refer to themselves in Irish, if at all. Hence, what advice would you give on how best to proceed, and apologies if you know all this already! Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on WP:IMOS is that just because a name has an Irish origin, and can be translated into Irish, doesn't mean it's their name. For it to be counted as their name in Irish they need to A) use it, B) be relatively commonly used and C) it needs to be sourced. Most "Irish" names are just people's names translated into Irish which isn't the same as them actually having an Irish name. Translating it into Irish is pure WP:OR and is not their name and is not acceptable. Just because an Irish language source translates their name into Irish, isn't any different to any other name, country, etc being translated, it still doesn't make it their name. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

[edit]

I recently reverted some edits (see here for example) because the consensus seems to be that the tables are borderline if not outright inappropriate on smaller articles like that, unless the "width-auto" is used and it's collapsed, in which case there seems to be no issue amongst editors for its inclusion. However the editor I reverted keeps readding the tables without addressing these issues and without attempting to make any discussion once it's known there's an issue with the content. I tried to fix them myself but was unable to do so. I did notice that you seem to be able to make the edits in a way that works, so I wanted to point out my edits because if you are able to make the changes, please feel free to revert me so that the problems with the tables are fixed. I'm certainly not asking you to do work for me or create work for you, it's just that I wasn't able to make it work, I honestly don't know what I was doing wrong when I attempted to fix it myself. Thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no worries. It's easy enough to get the template ensmallened (I know that's not a word) and collapsed. Simply add the following lines to the top of the temple in an edit inside the brackets (I add them after the location line).
|width = auto
|collapsed = true
And that should work. See this edit for how I fixed it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me play around with that in a sandbox and give that a try. If I can actually get it to work I'll happily undo my edits with those additions. - Aoidh (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also dropped a note on that editors page that they're not making friends, and to add the above as well when they add the template to avoid all these issues. I've asked them before and they didn't take it to heart. Canterbury Tail talk 18:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well look at that, it worked. I don't know if I was just having a brain fart or misspelling something or what, but I couldn't get the tables to cooperate like that until you spelled it out for me. Thanks, I'm undoing all of my edits now and including those parameters. - Aoidh (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no problem, happy to help. The |width = auto really needs to be incorporated into the template by default. Canterbury Tail talk 19:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

[edit]

In roughly 50 years time. All pronouns will no longer be used, as every group in society will find something offensive about them. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) There will always be cultures people who will use them. We still have English dialects that use "thee", "thou", and "thine", after all! BilCat (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for me you is singular, the plural form of you is youse. :) Canterbury Tail talk 02:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Down my way it's "y'all"! BilCat (talk) 02:59, 1 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) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Just a thank you for taking a stand against racism on the Talk:Ireland page. Bibby (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morals and ethics

[edit]

You reverted my change on the Orphan Black page. Having taught courses on applied ethics (one called "Moral Problems of Contemporary Society") for many years at university, I know something about the subject. The terms "morals" (from Latin) and "ethics" (from Greek) are commonly used interchangeably, even by scholars. Where a distinction is being made (e.g., using "ethics" to refer specifically to the study of right and wrong conduct), the distinction should be made clear to the reader. The present links to the Wikipedia entries don't do much to clarify what distinction may be intended in this case. I made the change I did because I find that the present wording is likely to muddy the water for the average reader. Scales (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve always understood them, and been taught them, to be rather different. With morals being an individual thing and internal mechanism and ethics being a more externalised and potentially societally governed thing. At least that’s how it’s taught in the European education systems that I’ve been involved in.
All that being said however I’ve checked the reference for this line and the show being about moral and ethical implications isn’t at all supported by the reference which at the end of the day is actually the important thing. So none of it is supported by the sources so likely should go unless a better source can be found. Canterbury Tail talk 03:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Your understanding is not wrong; it is one way of drawing a distinction between "morals" and "ethics". But have a look at this piece, which seems to reverse your definition of the terms. https://theconversation.com/you-say-morals-i-say-ethics-whats-the-difference-30913 The way these terms are used is not consistent, and all in all, it's probably not worth arguing about. Do what you think is best on the Orphan Black page. Scales (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it's best to remove anything that isn't sourced. And that section of the line about morals and ethics isn't supported by the source and should likely be completely removed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland protocol

[edit]

Here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Protocol LeicesterToNottingham123 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware of it, and no Northern Ireland isn't part of the EU. It actually seems that you are the one who doesn't understand Northern Ireland, Ireland or anything to do with it. Your editing is starting to become disruptive and please be aware that competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry.LeicesterToNottingham123 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hello, I'm the creator of an article you were involved in the discussion of, Loch Naver. As you can see here we never came to a conclusion. Since I want to revamp Loch Naver after my block I want your perspective regarding whether the settlements we discussed should be included in any shape or form in the final article? And if not why? N1TH Music (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika

[edit]

I checked RootOfAllLights talk and saw warnings for vandalising the swastika page in multiple other sections going back at least a year. The adding of the symbol may be a recurring issue. At the very least, the vandalising of the page is. I don't have time to check the specific edits they were previously warned for rn Stephanie921 (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:RootOfAllLight#December 2020 goes back almost 2 years, and even at that point the behaviour was described as having been done for "quite a long time". Stephanie921 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I’ve seen that. I have a feeling I’ll be creating an ANI thread shortly as I’m fairly sure they’re not here for encyclopaedic purposes. Canterbury Tail talk 01:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you Stephanie921 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazaras

[edit]

Hello, Canterbury Tail! Can you pay attention to this discussion please. I was forced to start this discussion due to the removal of sources from the Hazaras article. I would be very grateful if you could take your time. KoizumiBS (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia donation works

[edit]

Can i donate Wikipedia monthly basis Bijender dutta (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The donate link in the top left of the main menu will take you to the Donations page. You can go from there. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request an account

[edit]

Hello. I would like to make a request for an account. I have already done three times there, to no avail (did not even get a response on my e-mail once). If you could help me with this, I would be more than thankful. Thank you in advance for your time. 2A02:1388:208E:4ED0:3D12:FBF9:E54D:10AD (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyleung05

[edit]

Just after the block expired our friend is back. He has been adding improper categories to transit pages and actors' biographies: in the case of the former, he adds the "List of rolling stock" category to pages that are not lists; for the latter, he adds filmography categories to pages that are not filmographies. I reverted and warned him but if prior habits persist I'm sure he'll continue to do it. Happy to post to WP:ANI when that happens if you'd prefer I handle it there but thought you'd might like to know since it seems you've been following this user. Wallnot (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While they have been disruptive in the past yes, I'm not sure I'm seeing why edits such as this one are bad and need reverting. Seems reasonable as it's a reasonable category. Canterbury Tail talk 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose I misread that one; didn't realize the Toronto subway rolling stock article is indeed a list. The point stands re the filmographies, though, as well as adding Category:Lists of rolling stock in other instances. Wallnot (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly on the Toronto rolling stock one, the date change they made was actually correcting an article error according to the sources (specifically the second one.) I know I've been critical and have blocked this user before, but I think this one is jumping on them. As for the categories, we should try and explain why their edits are wrong here. I'm more than willing to indef this user for disruptive editing, but I don't think it's quite there yet. If you wish to take it to ANI or the like instead I won't object, but I also will not block at this time. That means just at this time, but if they continue disruption I'm willing to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 01:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thank you. Wallnot (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe page

[edit]

Many thanks for your revision on the Flybe page. I will look for a source on the two aircraft in question ASAP. I am still very new to Wikipedia so am just getting to grips with many of the courtesies and guidelines which are in place! Regards. C F Spring (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

If you looked, you can see I only removed the underscores, and in no way changed the spelling or meaning of your post. I only do this when it creates a lengthy link that forces the page to compress to left, making reading and navigation difficult. I have done this numerous times, going back years, and you are the very first editor to make an issue of it, ever. It would actually be considerate of you to remove the underscores yourself, going forward, but as for this edit, as you really didn't have a reason to revert, and the purpose of my edit was for accessibilty, which you have now been made aware of, I will kindly ask that you now self-revert. Thanks - wolf 21:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's nothing wrong with the link. The underscores made no difference for the operation of the link and the compression when the underscores are removed is incredibly minor and in no way affects the operation of anything. There is no reason to remove the underscores of a copy pasted link and I see no reason to self-revert it. I see nothing in the WP:TPO that allows for the editing of a link to remove underscores. And I did explain my edit and did give a reason for the reversion and why I reverted it, it achieved nothing. I don't understand your comment on how the page compressed to the left causing reading and navigation difficulties, as I've looked at both versions and the only differences are there's a minor compression of space, and the link will split across lines if you make the screen ridiculously small, neither of which are improvements to accessibility. And can you point me to the guideline surrounding the removal of underscores to help with accessibility. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I never said there was anything "wrong with the link", it works the same with or without the underscores. That said, I don't know how it appears to you, but for me, as I said, it compresses the page to the left. You say that nothing in TPO permits underscores to be removed, but nothing prevents it either. But beyond that, what about AGF? Or just good will in general? While you may not have known the reason before your revert, you know it now, so why make an issue out of it? How does retaining these underscores make your comment, or the page in general, any way better? Why are you contesting this? - wolf 22:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually TPO does prevent it by not listing it as an exception to when you can modify someone else's comment. The fact it doesn't mention it means it's not permitted. I don't see why you're contesting it or insisting on removing them in the first place, I see no accessibility issues that it's causing, I see no compression. I see two almost identical pages, one with no underscores and the resulting minor kerning alteration only. I see nothing that's it's improving by modifying the link to remove them. It's not broken, so doesn't require a fix in the first place. Canterbury Tail talk 22:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a part where TPO states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed..." and it continues with a section that leads off with:

"Examples of appropriately editing others' comments", one of which is:

"Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include:", and it goes on to list several examples, ending with "etc.".

This of course meaning that the list is not exhautive, there are other possible exceptions, (such as simply removing underscores when they cause issues with reading and/or navigation, and that have absolutely no effect on meaning).

I would think that idea is this section just can't list every possible exception. I would also think that for some unlisted items, like the situation we have here, the hope is that two editors can be reasonable and collaborative, that they would review, discuss and come to an agreement. I'm not sure why that isn't happening here. You again refer to how the page looks to you, but what about how it looks to other people? Perhaps editing on a different device? Or that have other issues and factors at play, that simply lead to a different result?

I made the edit and you reverted it. Ok, some people are like that, but I then explained it, and now, look at all the effort we've expended here... this is pointless. Surely you agree we could be putting all this time and effort to better use, no?

We've both been on WP a long time, I don't recall ever having a dispute with you, so I don't think this is personal. So really, I'm kinda at a loss as to why you want to pursue a conflict here, instead of just letting it go and moving on. - wolf 08:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, lets move on. I see no reason for you to alter the formatting of my edit. You were bold, you were reverted, the discussion isn't going to go anywhere so lets move on. Like you I'm not interested in pursuing this any further, if you refrain from altering my talk page messages there is no further need for discussion. So yes, let it go. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you keep referring to "your" message(s), but you don't hold sole rights in perpetuity to anything you post on WP. Your only answers here are based solely on "I don't like it" and "I didn't hear that", considering your continued refusal to address any of the issues I've put forward, or really, to be in any way cooperative. The is another section in TPO under the part about editing other's posts; it's further down, under "Fixing links:" ... "so that they will work ... between our mobile and desktop sites" (I don't know if that's the difference between what we're seeing, but you're not being forthcoming with any useful information.)
If you won't self-revert, then I'll again change the formatting on that page to make it more stable. It makes no change to the meaning of your message, you've already admitted you see little difference, if any, between the two versions, and as you've stated that you are ready move on, there's really no reason left for you to belabour this issue.
That said, I'll just add that this was an unfortunate turn of events. As I said, we've both been on WP for a long time, we often edit the same subjects, and I've don't recall ever having a disagreement with you. I've always respected your contributions to the project. I hope none of this changes, going forward. Have a nice day. - wolf 20:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who won't drop this. You reverted again, and I've reverted you again. You are the one who said you want to move on with editing something else, so unless you can provide a policy reason to refactor someone else's talkpage comment, with a reason and evidence that it's necessary, do not alter other's talk page comments that are not broken. It strikes me as more that you're the one who doesn't like it. And yes I have looked at it on a mobile device, a desktop device, on multiple browsers, and there is nothing that I can see that it is causing any kind of a problem. As you say I've been on Wikipedia for a long long time, and I've never heard of an instance where an _ in a URL causes an accessibility issue. Considering the hundreds of thousands of such links lining talk pages throughout the project, both personal talk pages and article discussion pages, I'd think if a standard internet URL display caused an issue in a browser it would be mentioned somewhere. The only time I've ever come across a reason that we remove them is if they're in direct links inside actual articles in prose such as "and the plane landed at Heathrow_Airport." Additionally you should not be engaging in a edit war over a topic that is under discussion (especially 2 minutes after asking me to self-revert again), and edit warring applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any talk page watchers, I know you're there, want to chime in? On either side of the point for an outside third opinion? Canterbury Tail talk 22:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...so unless you can provide a policy reason to refactor someone else's talkpage comment, with a reason and evidence that it's necessary, do not alter other's talk page comments that are not broken." - that right there tells me you are not reading my replies above, or choosing to ignore whatever in them that doesn't suit you. I provided several quotes, highlighted in color, from TPO that support the change I made. I did not "refactor" your comment, I simply removed the underscores, and I explained why, repeatedly: that they were causing an issue with the page. So you have chosen to revert, yet again, and oddly chose to cite TPO, (I've provided quotes from TPO, you haven't), and EW, (you're a revert ahead of me, and you provided no reason for your reverts. Actually read WP:EW, as well as H:RV, WP:RV, WP:ROWN & WP:OWN.) I made an edit to fix a problem. Just becuase you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a reasonable edit to make, supported by the guidelines. You, otoh, have not provided a single, worthwhile reason to revert, making your edits purely disruptive.
If others want to comment from the bleachers, (eg: GART-22: "TWC is very much in the wrong!!"), I strongly suggest that you consider exactly what is being edited and why, along with the guidelines, etc. cited, in the responses I've given, and the effort at cooperation I've made. Compare that to attitude I've received, along with the lack of reasoning for reverting, no policy support, and/or no cooperation in return. You guys are acting like I'm completely re-writing his comment, without any justification, and having this discussion just to stir up shit for the hell of it. I just tried to fix a problem with a minor, justifiable edit. All the nonsense that followed was completely unnecessary. 04:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
So yes I have read your comments, all of them. And as I say I've tested the page on multiple browsers, devices etc, and also looked at dozens of other talk pages with the same URL formatting, some going back a decade or more on active talk pages, that no one has seen a need to correct. The unfortunate thing is you haven't demonstrated there is a problem you're trying to fix. Look at it from my perspective and you'll see why I'm not seeing it as a reasonable edit to make. Underscores in URLs, specifically in visual hyperlink text, causing accessibility problems has seemingly never once been documented on Wikipedia as an issue that I can find, and I've searched (it's possible I've missed something and am willing to be shown that.) And yes I've asked what is the problem this is meant to resolve, and the only explanation you've made is it compresses the page to the left which from a technical perspective I cannot even visualise that such a bug in either Mediawiki (or browsers in general or some browsers) exists. I know you think you're being clear, but you've actually provided no information on what the problem seems to be beyond an ambiguous "it compresses the page to the left making reading and navigation difficult." The fact it's never been a reported problem historically in the many tens of thousands of uses also leaves me scratching my head as to what the issue is. As a result, from my perspective, it comes across more of a nitpicking personal preference edit and not one to fix an actual problem. And to be honest the fact that you've "done this numerous times, going back years, and you are the very first editor to make an issue of it, ever" is also head scratching for what you're making out to be a significant problem that no one has ever talked about. If there is a genuine problem with my talk comment formatting then I'm happy for it to be corrected, but I see no demonstration, and no discussion, of there being such a problem. Additionally if there is a major accessibility issue here, this is the wrong solution to the problem, it's something we should resolve as a project, not an individual making some tweaks to people's comments one at a time if they see them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that response. As to not being clear, I apologize for that and I will try to clarify now: the issue does not appear when I use my laptop, but does appear when I use my android smartphone, in desktop mode. In read view, when there is a wikilink with underscores in every space, creating one long string of characters, it extendes past the normal page width on the right, causing the page to compress to the left. The longer the link, the more it compresses, making the text smaller. This also creates room for the page to scroll left and right, as well as and down. When you are navigating on a small screen by thumb, it's now not just matter of sliding up and down, but you also need to continually correct to the left. When there are lenthy url strings, they are automatically broken to fit to the screen size, to they don't cause the same problem. This is different in edit mode, however, where both wikilinks and urls extend past the normal screen width to right, causing the navigation problem, but at least here there is no compression.

I assure you, this is not "nit-picking". I suppose I just figured this was an issue that only appears in the particular circumstance of editing with a smartphone, in desktop mode. Whenever I'm editing a page, for whatever reason, and come across these extended wikilinks, I sometimes just simply remove the underscores, which improves both navigating and reading. To me, this is a legitimate improvement. I've done this on busier pages, such wikiproject talk pages, and the busiest of them all, ANI, and as I said, no one has ever made an issue of it, not even in the slightest. I have not inquired about it at a venue such as VP/T (or at least, I haven't yet... I may have at some point). I believed that was because others were also aware of this issue and knew that I was only removing the underscores to fix it. So now, the question is: can you accept that I was making a legitimate edit, as outlined here, and covered in TPO, (as well as a possible access issue), or do you still think I'm needlessly chasing after underscores as some kind of pet peeve, and making up the page issue as an excuse? I can assure you it is the former, not the latter. I fully realize that editing another editor's comment, especially a second time, without a legitimate reason, is just asking for a block, and I'm not looking to get blocked.

As for the Titanic talk page, after the edits that have been made since, the link in question now defaults to the left side, casuing less extension to the right, and making the compression minimal. (But for me, it is still there). In edit mode, the navigation issue is still there, but there is also a long IPv6 signature, so (afaik) not much to be done. (It makes a difference where such links are, and whether editing threads vs full page). To be honest, if that wikilink was in it's current position when I first edited the page (answering an edit request), I probably wouldn't have bothered with it. At any time, if the compression in read mode is mimimal, or there are also lengthy urls and/or IPv6 signatures in edit mode, then I usually don't bother with any wikilinks extended by underscores.

So there, sorry about the length, but I wanted to try and clearly explain the issue, what I've done (so far) because of it, and why. I hope I've now done that. And, as I've done in my previous posts, I still want to try and maintain some goodwill going forward. Have a nice day - wolf 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries for the length, sometimes to get the explanation right it's good to use more words. Thanks to your description above I've finally been able to see what it is you're talking about. As you say yes it's a very specific confluence of events. Small screen mobile phone in portrait mode and viewing the page in the specific desktop version and not the mobile version. Thing is this isn't actually a Wikipedia issue, it's an internet issue/standard computer operation issue. It's not reasonable for a webpage, designed for full desktop viewing to be expected to render properly on a small format screen, in a different orientation, overriding the sites desire to give you the mobile experience which is designed specifically to avoid these kind of issues. I'm torn on whether this is something that is reasonable to go around and fix as it's kind of like if I open my car hood, don't use the pole to keep it upright, put my hand inside and then deliberately let go and let it fall on my hand it then hurts situation. It's not being operated the way it's intended and there's several things you have to do to get to that situation. So this isn't a Wikipedia accessibility issue or the like, it's a the way computers work when you put them in that situation issue. We don't support accessibility for those situations. You will get this in any long single string (I suggest you do not go to Longest word in English page on your phone or some pharmaceutical compounds. So it seems wrong to edit comments just to overcome a situation that it shouldn't be in in the first place issue. The mobile flag to a web browser is designed specifically for this and that is the solution to the accessibility issue, if you choose to go down the path with warnings that's kind of on the user and we shouldn't be taking steps to assist in that area. Accessibility is about providing a means for things not to be an issue for others, and we've provided the means as has the site and the browser. I know it seems like a minor issue to you, and a triviality to fix, but it's the wrong solution to a problem that's honestly of the user's own making. It's not intended to be used in that manner.
This all being said I will not revert it again if you wish to make the change, but I do believe your approach is wrong and you're trying to solve something that is only an issue if you deliberately operate it incorrectly. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find I'm using my phone to edit more and more, which is becoming common for a majority of users, and I would use the mobile version, if it didn't suck, (and apparently I'm not alone in thinking that). You of course have a point about things being used as intended, but I don't think that makes other forms of usage completely invalid. I appreciate your change of stance on the edit, but as I said, after the last few changes, the link is now on far left for some reason, minimizing the compression. If it was like that to begin with, I wouldn't have bothered, and so won't change it again now. Hopefully a future verison of the wiki-software, (or my next phone), eliminates this issue. In the meantime, I don't go looking for links to change, and only do so when I'm editing a page and a link is long enough to cause the problems I noted. That said, I will take your comments into consideration. I don't anticipate any further issues, but should it come up again, I'll make every effort to communicate as clearly as possible from the outset. Thanks again for your considered and informative reply. Have a nice day - wolf 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TWC should not have changed another user's comment. The reasonable thing to do here would have been to ask CT to make the change. After CT reverted, and asked TWC not to edit his comments, TWC was very much in the wrong to re-apply his edit. That's edit warring, even if it's in talk space, and even if it's not 3RR. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You caught me spying! Wolf can be a bit tedious sometimes, but he does mean well. Unfortunately he shouldn't be editing someone else's comments like that, especially after being reverted, and especially an experienced editor. He does have a tendency to "major on the minors" at times (as do I!), and this is such a case. I've learned it's sometimes best to let him have his way, and just move on to more important things. BilCat (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have the same issues on my tablet. I barely see it any more, so I assume my browser was updated in some way that fixed the issue. It can be annoying, and I do understand Wolf's motivation better now. I used to just add single square brackets to such links and move on. I never had anyone complain about it, and I don't think anyone ever reverted either. BilCat (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accassidy

[edit]

Hi! Not sure where best to report this, nor if you can do anything about this (though noting you were the one who blocked him recently here), but Accassidy has been making the same kind of edits to Simple English Wikipedia as those he was blocked for here on en.wiki, see simple:Special:Contributions/Accassidy. I would have responded to the original ANI discussion about it, but I just realised this after the discussion was closed unfortunately. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we have no authority over Simple Wikipedia, it's a different project. However if you raise it to the admins over there, I'm sure someone will take care of it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see... to be honest I was also hoping not to have to do this myself, since I have interacted with him on Wikispecies a few times in the past, all in good terms, so it might make any future interactions there awkward at least. It's disappointing to see him go down this strange WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS road on Wikipedia. But I guess that can't be helped, I'll just have to do this anyway I suppose. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Just to keep you updated if you were interested, he has now been blocked on Simple English Wikipedia too. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RA9Markus

[edit]

Hi, over at Emilio Aguinaldo, user RA9Markus continues to revert the infobox image to his preferred portrait, referring to users who have changed it as idiots or blind [1]. I've warned him three times and asked for consensus on Talk:Emilio Aguinaldo, but it's just happened again with me as the idiot. I was unsure if this is a 1RR happening overtime, but as I'm now a revert myself, I can't really comment. Please advise. Sciencefish (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on their talk page, lets see if that is in any way helpful. If they continue I will block, and may well block them permanently from editing that article. They need to get consensus, which they clearly don't have, stop edit warring and the personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sciencefish (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, RA9Markus has once again reverted the image to their preferred one[2], ignoring the consensus discussion on the talk page, and again calling those that changed it idiots. I've put a level 4 warning on their talk page. Sciencefish (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, next time don't warn them just come to me and I'll manage it if I don't see it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Sciencefish (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UCL press

[edit]

Hi, CT. As a Friendly Local Administrator, could you look at UCL Press, please? Looks like a copy/paste job (hopefully, COI edit if not).

For UCLP to have its own article is uncontroversial IMO (when I created it as a redirect to UCL, it was a quick'n'dirty fix that I forgot to come back to). So the question re the means rather than the end. Is a null edit giving attribution enough or does it have to be done 'properly'? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has already handled it, deleted the copyvios and redirected it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I see. Thanks for looking anyway. Was this the most appropriate way to flag a new or rebuilt article for review? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was a blatant copyvio it’s fine. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K Club

[edit]

Why did you remove the infobox Michelin star from the article K Club? It is part of a series where all restaurant with a historical Michelin star have that infobox. The star is sourced. The Banner talk 18:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted, I see it is referenced even if some of the wording is not quite correct (I.e. chefs don’t earn stars, restaurants do.) I did remove it because it’s ancient and could make people think it still has it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is the restaurant that gets the star, but often when the chef leaves, the star leaves too. And when the chef starts elsewhere, Michelin knows his/her qualities and is often quick with rewarding a new star. For example: Henk Savelberg.
But thanks for the revert. Much appreciated. The Banner talk 21:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive airline editor back again.

[edit]

Please see User talk:99.233.169.216. You blocked them two months ago and they are back making the same kinds of edits on a mass scale. I reported this at ANI but no one has taken any action yet. MB 00:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Canterbury Tail talk 02:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

[edit]

TCG here, I just want to say that I appreciate your attempt to offer a balanced point of view while I was being used as a scratching post. Wikipedia would be a far better website if there were more editors like you. The others in that nasty shouting match have now taken over a page I had put a good deal of work into and now revert any and all edits not made by themselves. The sheer amount of bad faith, bias, and possessiveness over articles is frankly disgusting. I got indefinitely blocked for the high crime of reverting an article they had arbitrarily commandeered. However I have no further interest in the site anyway given the appalling behaviour of a certain admin I will not name. I had once thought Wikipedia could be reformed, but it would need many many more people like you and far fewer like.... yes...

Cheers, and farewell. - TCG. 89.240.246.123 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I wanted to see how reliable the info on Wikipedia was, so I vandalised it a few times to test if anyone would bother reverting them. I was surprised to see that people do care about Wikipedia and they will stop vandalism. Thank you for being one of those who care. 
AryanBaviskar (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

[edit]

Please block the IP range 147.158.0.0/16 because it was used for adding fake information across Wikimedia projects as depicted like this..... Thanks...... 180.241.77.113 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

[edit]

Please extend the expiration blocking time of IP range 120.188.0.0/17 until 31 May 2025 because it would be used by the anonymous user which frequently add word "Lampung" at the wrong place as well as adding any wrong information across Wikimedia projects like this..... Thanks..... 36.78.194.76 (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That range is already blocked, there is zero reason to pre-emptively extend it. Lets just see if it's an issue once the block expires. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alien 3

[edit]

Thank you for reversing my edit on the pronoun. A while after I made the edit, I realized I had misread the sentence and went back to undo -- but you beat me to it. Good to know someone is double-checking! Grammarbuddy (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all make mistakes sometimes. Still learning after 17 years myself. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

[edit]

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

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrkWebber

[edit]

You seem to be on a lot of pages I’m on. DrkWebber (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have well over a thousand pages on my watchlist, and have tens of thousands of edits all over the encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I illustrate on DEVIANTART. DrkWebber (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I sincerely appreciate your dedication for maintaining Jamie Dornan article thoroughly against countless vandalism attempts. Also thank you for guiding me through my earlier edits. Cheers! Early Happy New Year! Fitzwilliams (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
At first not too happy with your undoing of my contribution in good faith. 24 hours later and I can see why it's very important to have users like you who help others to think critically about their suggestions. I especially appreciated the time you took out of your busy schedule to explain the reasons behind your actions. That helped me to bring better focus in my edits and additions. In short: thanks and keep up the good work. No easy task! Majvdl (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Canterbury Tail!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Canterbury Tail,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Canterbury Tail!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Canterbury Tail,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

[edit]

User talk:SharadSHRD7 is continuously vandilizing the page Next Indian general election even after warning him. Editors like User talk:Dhruv edits told not to add regional alliances to the page as it is national election. He is still vandalizing the page even requesting him not to do that. He has contested in edit warring many times in past and there was a discussion involving him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please do something. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A) it's not vandalism, I recommend you read WP:VANDALISM for what constitutes vandalism and B) You're edit warring in a content dispute.