Old talk is at /Archive.
Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.
Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.
If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
List of Admiralty Charts 1967
I see that the decision on the article is transwiki to Wikisource, and that you are the admin on this. What next? The article is still there on WP. How is the transfer managed? I have used Wikisource but never contributed material, so I am not familiar with the procedures. Do I, as creator of the page, need to be involved, or does this just happen? Thanks Kognos (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Someone with Importer rights on Wikisource needs to perform the import. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-31
20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi King of Hearts,
This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 19, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-08-19. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Bryce Canyon National Park is an American national park located in southwestern Utah. The major feature of the park is Bryce Canyon, which despite its name, is not a canyon, but a collection of giant natural amphitheaters along the eastern side of the Paunsaugunt Plateau. This panoramic view, as seen from Inspiration Point, shows the colorful Claron Formation, from which the park's delicate hoodoos are carved; the sediments were laid down in a system of streams and lakes that existed from 63 to about 40 million years ago (from the Paleocene to the Eocene epochs). The brown, pink and red colors are from hematite, the yellows from limonite, and the purples from pyrolusite. Photograph credit: Tony Jin
Recently featured:
|
Tech News: 2021-32
16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Undeletion request
Hello King of Hearts. Please restore the ff. files in accordance with newly-accepted consensus at Commons on exceptions of Italian works by deceased authors (c:Template:FoP-Italy):
- both by Carlo Scarpa who died in 1978.
- File:Galuppi-Burano.jpg - assuming this is this sculpture, then most likely OK now as its artist died in 2005.
- File:Venetie Italie 223.jpg - the upload log claims it was created by Marino Marini, who seems to be Marino Marini (sculptor) who is also already deceased.
I once tried requesting the undeletion at WP:UNDEL, but for some reason my requests were unnoticed. They are now archived at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 362.
I am now requesting for your restoration of these, as I recently saw your closure of several Italian pending FOP cases as kept (like c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Torre Galfa (Milan) and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milano - panoramio (28).jpg). Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Sat Aug 14: Wikimania Wiknic NYC
August 14, 12-5pm: Wikimania Wiknic NYC | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a planned socially-distanced Wiknic ("the picnic anyone can edit") in Brooklyn's Prospect Park to coincide with the virtual Wikimania 2021. For this occasion, and to allow more space as desired, we have individually packed lunches provided by the chapter, and attendees are encouraged to RSVP at Eventbrite and give sandwich/entree orders.
|
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy close?
Please revert your speedy close of this RM here which has significant support. Just because a proposal contradicts a guideline doesn't mean consensus can't change or choose to IAR the guideline in a given case. I don't think a speedy close is justified here. And WP:SPEEDY does not even apply to RM discussions anyway. Please allow it to run its course. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 03:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- By speedy I actually mean WP:SNOW - over the years many RMs have been attempted in contravention of WP:USPLACE, and they have never succeeded. And even if a slim majority happen to support such a result at a particular discussion (which this RM was not trending towards by the way), it is far more likely just luck of the draw in terms of who showed up rather than evidence of consensus changing. (If you have a population where 60-70% of people support something, and you take enough random samples of 10 people, you'll eventually end up with one where the opposition is a majority.) That is partly what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is for; WP:IAR can only override a guideline with an overwhelming consensus. The right place to discuss USPLACE is on the talk page of the guideline, which I see is already ongoing. Why not steer that discussion towards your preferred view, and if you succeed restart the RM? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- That may be good advice—thank you—but it’s beside the point, which is about the appropriateness of your premature close of an ongoing RM discussion. SNOW is rarely used in RMs and normally only where the discussion is unanimously agreed upon one way or another. I suggest you reread WP:SNOWBALL and pay particular attention to WP:SNOW#The snowball test, which this case does not meet, and WP:SNOW#A cautionary note. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 05:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- In a normal discussion, a mere majority of well-thought arguments is sufficient to carry the day. In this discussion, an overwhelming supermajority is required to override WP:USPLACE, and that's just not going to happen; it's about as likely as an AfD with 10 unanimous deletes turning into a slim majority to keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- (User talk page watcher here) @Born2cycle: while I support for simplification of the names, in my opinion KoH is right. You cannot initiate any new move requests while a centralized discussion is ongoing. That is what happened to our case, in which the use of cityname-only convention for uniquely-named Philippine towns was only "institutionalized" thru MOSPHIL during mid-2020 (though I can now see some shortcomings of this convention such as the case of Bulusan). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have it backwards. The RM was proposed three days before the centralized discussion was started. The close of the ongoing active RM was premature when it was suddenly closed days before it would elapse and be ready for closure. Highly inappropriate. You’ve tried to rationalize this close in three different ways now, none of which apply (SPEEDY, SNOW, and “started while centralized discussion is ongoing”). Please. This is ridiculous. —В²C ☎ 10:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- B2C: The RM was flawed from the outset. You should have directed User:PK2, the technical requester, to USPLACE, PERENNIAL, or even the Village Pump since the subject is (as I'm sure you're aware) flagged as a perennially-rejected proposal, and since their less-than-one-sentence request gives no indication of any familiarity with these guidelines. They may not have even wished to continue with the request had that been made clear. Choosing instead to immediately elevate the request into an RM of your own as a means of debating the subject again was disruptive. For a variety of reasons, closure was justified. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it wasn’t justified. All of these unjustified excuses don’t allow for consensus to change which happens through discussion of individual cases exactly like this one, as well as through centralized overall discussions. It’s WP:Status quo stonewalling. —В²C ☎ 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we just fundamentally disagree on what WP:IAR means. For me, IAR does not mean to attempt to gradually chip away at a guideline until it ceases to be enforced. IAR is for situations that come up rarely, where we ignore a policy or guideline as a one-off because the situation demands it, but is unlikely to be invoked for similar situations in the future. If there is a large set of instances in which you believe a guideline is wrong, then the correct procedure is to propose to change it. We should never get in a habit of invoking IAR in a similar manner on the same guideline on a variety of cases (which I assume is your intention here; as a final outcome, having the AP cities + Omaha be the only cities without a state would make no one happy). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It’s for both. The relevant purpose here is WP:CCC. And you don’t even need IAR to propose a change contrary to previously established consensus. So there’s no rule-breaking involved in such a proposal, and no justification to close it prior to it elapsing. —18:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- And that's where we disagree. As I understand it, IAR is not for changing consensus. It is for doing something contrary to sitewide consensus even as you continue to acknowledge its general applicability. Basically, you shouldn't use IAR because you disagree with a rule; you should only use it when a rule ought not be applied in a particular case for very special reasons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It’s for both. The relevant purpose here is WP:CCC. And you don’t even need IAR to propose a change contrary to previously established consensus. So there’s no rule-breaking involved in such a proposal, and no justification to close it prior to it elapsing. —18:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we just fundamentally disagree on what WP:IAR means. For me, IAR does not mean to attempt to gradually chip away at a guideline until it ceases to be enforced. IAR is for situations that come up rarely, where we ignore a policy or guideline as a one-off because the situation demands it, but is unlikely to be invoked for similar situations in the future. If there is a large set of instances in which you believe a guideline is wrong, then the correct procedure is to propose to change it. We should never get in a habit of invoking IAR in a similar manner on the same guideline on a variety of cases (which I assume is your intention here; as a final outcome, having the AP cities + Omaha be the only cities without a state would make no one happy). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it wasn’t justified. All of these unjustified excuses don’t allow for consensus to change which happens through discussion of individual cases exactly like this one, as well as through centralized overall discussions. It’s WP:Status quo stonewalling. —В²C ☎ 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- B2C: The RM was flawed from the outset. You should have directed User:PK2, the technical requester, to USPLACE, PERENNIAL, or even the Village Pump since the subject is (as I'm sure you're aware) flagged as a perennially-rejected proposal, and since their less-than-one-sentence request gives no indication of any familiarity with these guidelines. They may not have even wished to continue with the request had that been made clear. Choosing instead to immediately elevate the request into an RM of your own as a means of debating the subject again was disruptive. For a variety of reasons, closure was justified. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have it backwards. The RM was proposed three days before the centralized discussion was started. The close of the ongoing active RM was premature when it was suddenly closed days before it would elapse and be ready for closure. Highly inappropriate. You’ve tried to rationalize this close in three different ways now, none of which apply (SPEEDY, SNOW, and “started while centralized discussion is ongoing”). Please. This is ridiculous. —В²C ☎ 10:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- That may be good advice—thank you—but it’s beside the point, which is about the appropriateness of your premature close of an ongoing RM discussion. SNOW is rarely used in RMs and normally only where the discussion is unanimously agreed upon one way or another. I suggest you reread WP:SNOWBALL and pay particular attention to WP:SNOW#The snowball test, which this case does not meet, and WP:SNOW#A cautionary note. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 05:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-33
19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)