If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Fayenatic london}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
We note that category names for people can be considered separately, usually using the demonym, which may be different from the adjective used for other topics – e.g. the consistent trees around Philippine films and Filipino film directors.
WP:WikiProject Luxembourg has stated since Sept 2015 that "Luxembourg" is currently the preferred adjective… 'Luxembourger' is the undisputed demonym.[1]
The ethnic group article Luxembourgers cites the EU re "Luxembourgish" being the adjective.[2] Wikipedia does not follow that source for other countries, e.g. in Literature by country we use Tajikistani rather than Tajik, and Kiribati rather than Kiribatian; although it should perhaps carry more weight in the case of Luxembourg.
I have personally always preferred Luxembourgish as the adjective. It is true that local preferences should not be decisive but there is no good reason to ignore them where there is no consensus for an alternative either. I don't think there is any risk of confusion with the language, and surely no more than there would be for List of French films or List of German films. I do prefer Luxembourg to Luxembourgian but having been very exercised about this issue about a decade ago I have also come to the conclusion that life is short... —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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, Suonii180 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
It seems that you replied or commented on old stuff at the top of my talk page, that I had been ignoring. I pay very little attention to the top of my talk page, except to email alerts that someone has edited my talk page. Messages at the top of my talk page either have already scrolled to the top and are about to be archived by ClueBot, or were posted to the top by either of two types of ignorant users, those who don't know how talk pages work, or those who stupidly think that posting to the top gets my attention. So in checking on notification that you posted to my talk page, I see that you commented on stuff that I wasn't looking at anyway.
So, is there a reason why you commented on messages that I was already ignoring? Is there something that I should pay attention to, or were you just telling me to ignore things that were already in limbo? I am assuming that you were trying to be helpful, but was there something that you were suggesting that I do, or were you just doing well-meaning busywork that caused me to do more busywork?
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I went to your page looking for someone experienced at MFD, and was going to ask your advice about a user with lots of unexplained WP:COPYARTICLEs, but then I noticed that that editor was more active on another Wikipedia, so I left them a follow-up message there.
Sorry for the distraction! The messages on your talk page will be archived by ClueBot now that they are headed and signed, but it has skipped them until now. Forgive me omitting to leave you a note after meddling like a WP:TPS. – FayenaticLondon17:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that the messages were not being archived because they were not signed. I had almost forgotten that.
That's a lot of copies. If I saw any of them at MFD, I would !vote to Redirect them to the articles that they are copies of. The only reason that I am not recommending that you nominate them for MFD is that it will be a lot of work to list what they are copies of. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
After I created a CFD that you voted at and since there was a unanimous decision to merge Category:Missing people found deceased into Category:Formerly missing people, I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining. Yet there is still talk about starting another CFD. Perhaps you could let the people here who are discussing this that there is absolutely no need to. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm not going to stop people discussing whether some or all of these articles should be purged from the merged category. Admins are here to implement consensus, not to impose it. – FayenaticLondon13:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:FayeWong-EyesOnMe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Pemilligan: well spotted. I was following the steps and links at template:Copyvio, which still says "Add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 14" today. I see that the template uses {{timestamp}} rather than the current date, which makes sense once the template has been subst'd, but was less helpful when an editor is following the instructions on the template page. Perhaps we could get a bot to refresh the template page daily. – FayenaticLondon08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for your contributions to List of given names derived from fiction. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Yes, Category:Jamaican television shows should be removed, and articles that are in other sub-cats should be purged. No, I wasn't planning to watch/maintain this category myself.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nevis 1983 Xmas MS.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Nevis 1983 Xmas MS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
@Vanjagenije: IMHO the low-res image was a nice addition to the article, but I note that as currently worded WP:NONFREE#Images includes "For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it", and that does seem to preclude continuing use of this non-free image. – FayenaticLondon16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Hello, Fayenatic london,
I've been seeing a disturbing pattern with empty categories about the past two weeks I hope you can help with. Here's the situation: Ernsanchez00 creates categories that have a division of gender and sexual orientation/identity, Giovanni 0331 empties the categories, they then get tagged for CSD C1 and later are deleted. The two editors are working on the same area of the project, categorizing people, mostly actors, on a level of gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity, but have different ideas on how that should be done. I have asked both editors to discuss this with each other so they are on the same page but that conversation is not happening. I'll just add that Ernsanchez00 has been very cooperative even though it's their contributions that are getting deleted. They even went to some CSD C1-tagged categories and marked them for deletion so they could be CSD G7.
The reason I come to you is that I do not fully understand the extent of the diffusing/non-diffusing aspect of categories. There is what I think it means (include women authors in both women authors and authors categories) but I'm less sure when it comes to sexual orientation and sexual identity. I'm guessing that one of these two editors has a correct understanding of this and the other editor does not, but I'm not certain who is who. Can you educate me here and make sure that we aren't deleting valid categories from the project because they are being emptied? On the other hand, if they should be deleted, I'd like to know that as well. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the delay, @Liz: – been busy IRL. I don't consider myself an expert on WP:EGRS. If categories created by one editor are being deleted with that editor's cooperation rather than objection, my starting point would be not to worry about it if they are new. If the categories had been in place a couple of years then I'd put effort in to see them moved, rather than replaced without attribution; and that effort would have the benefit of inviting scrutiny by others. Either way, if the new categories seem to be against policy or CFD precedent, then challenge is needed. HTH… – FayenaticLondon22:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reverted the other edit by that IP address, but they only made 2 edits and it was 10 hours ago, so I believe there's no need to block unless they use that address again. Instead, I have renewed the protection on María Clara.
In that article, I noticed that Vortex3427 recently made a big cut from the lead section. Please consider whether the sentence about the feminine ideal should be reinstated, and the other sentences re-created in a separate section about her plot line. – FayenaticLondon21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what you see its like a minor or typographical errors etc...but since I know the article about its one of the famous and known article as character of famous book wrote by José Rizal, and for that editor he/she completely not just vandalizing but making fan etc about the article because I understand what he/she put on the article which clearly not supposed to be...its not like claiming or putting words without sources or point of view but he/she put like playing game in short of something and I ask you to please put strong protection on Maria Clara article since its not a minor type article. Thank you for your cooperation and direct response.Rc ramz (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rc ramz: no-one seems to have posted any warnings on their user pages. Please use standard templates from WP:WARN to let them know they are being watched. If you and other editors do this and still they carry on with disruptive edits, then admins can quickly block them. Otherwise, we would have to spend time investigating before we do that.
Start with a level 1 warning, unless what they are doing is obviously in bad faith. Then increase to level 2, level 3 etc if they make another bad edit after the first warning. – FayenaticLondon15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I did and still not listening I warned him/her on his/her talk page but now minutes still undo without valid reasons when you view his user page Tankura he is long years in the community but never learned the rules in Wikipedia. I hope this can resolve with your help. Thank you.Rc ramz (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of your warning templates as it incorrectly referred to a report at WP:AN when no report had been made there.
The user's last edit[3] was to revert themselves; perhaps they have learned their lesson, so I have not blocked them.
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
If your premise is that category redirects should not exist at all, then propose a change of policy with respect to them. They are permissible, and for categories that existed at a particular title for a long time before being moved, positively useful. BD2412T15:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to, e.g., Category:Loki (season 1) episodes. I left these redirects intentionally because the category structure for thousands of recently-moved season articles has been in place for over a decade, so editors working in the area will benefit from category-populating tools recognizing the old versions and automatically updating to the new ones when the categories are added to articles. BD2412T18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was not aware of category-populating tools that would populate the old names. When I deleted that small group, I thought they had been left behind inadvertently, and I could not conceive of any benefit. Rather, I saw them as clutter which would confuse search results, and thought editors would quickly learn the new naming format.
I noticed today that you have also done extra work to recreate many more redirects that were listed at WP:CFDW. An opportunity was missed there, to code these listings with * REDIRECT, in which case the bot would have left redirects behind, coded with "keep=yes". – FayenaticLondon19:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how quickly editors will learn the new categorization, but there are hundreds of editors who work on this (corresponding to the hundreds of TV series episodes being churned out). It also seems odd to me that we would unquestionably keep thousands of resulting redirects like Loki (season 1) --> Loki season 1, but not keep the few hundred like Category:Loki (season 1) episodes --> Category:Loki season 1 episodes. If there's a quick fix that can be made to mark the category redirects as appropriate to be kept, I'm glad to add whatever is needed. BD2412T19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, it was created by BrownHairedGirl in 2017; she was a longstanding editor who often filled in missing parts of incomplete hierarchies, sometimes creating them where they had been added as red links by others. The page is only two years older than the target, and in this case I think it would just make it more messy to merge the page history, for relatively little benefit. So I think this merge can simply be implemented as nominated. – FayenaticLondon08:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Comparing it to the UK, the best term might be "constituent countries" with "devolved" competences. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten have got autonomy in most matters except defence and foreign affairs (handled by the Parliament (Tweede Kamer) and Government of the Netherlands), and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands as its highest judicial body. So in a sense they are "dependent", but by comparison they have more autonomy than, say, Scotland or Wales. The British reserve the term "Crown Dependencies" for jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Like them, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten have a governor directly representing the king (which Scotland and Wales don't), but they also have prime ministers similar to the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man. So I'm not sure what to call them legally... NLeeuw (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Please Myself pink cover.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Please Myself pink cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
Hello, and I apparently missed a CfD nominating "Former Ikawa Line Stations". I was intending on adding several more stations that were submerged due to the construction of a dam, but I was distracted by something else that I would not like to disclose and accidentally forgot about it's existence. I'm not objecting the result that it was closed as delete for now, because it makes sense as a 1-paged category, but I wished that you could have just left a notice regarding the CfD nomination to my talk page. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite not used to doing those kinds of things (I am technically 6 months into editing as I didn't do anything for the first 6 months) So I added Those 2 when I recreate it in the future? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Please Myself pink cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Hey man im josh: I didn't go through them all, I just added "Agreed" on a couple of samples that looked right, to demonstrate that I did agree in principle with renamings according to that pattern. Yes, these NZ and Danish examples look right too.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Thanks for confirming! Well, you said French; the comma got me started i.e. with the first word addressing someone, and the rest almost tripped off the tongue – I had a full sentence in about a minute of trying to guess. It helped that my school French had been supplemented by staying with Francophone Christians.
You can keep it there. Rest assured it in no way directly identifies who I am. Googling it provides nothing of use, I promise. I've gone and expanded the acronym anyhow..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of audio recording pioneers, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
