User talk:Canterbury Tail/Archive 15

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

You were reverted...[edit]

What is considered an acceptable reference for a movie, if sites like IMDb are not?


...here, but I have some sympathy for that, if the person is a founder of an organization or a member of a band or something like that. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but as per the WP:CITSTRUCT agreement a person must have an article to be notable to be included. Runs alongside as WP:NLIST. It does sound as if the person may well be notable enough for their own article however, reading through some stuff about him, if we can separate that from the charity. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm invoking IAR on this one and putting him back in. Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GitS "Mobile Armored Riot Police" to "Offensive-Shelled Mobile Unit"[edit]

Here, may I confirm your intention on my re-translation? I see you cancel mine to your "official". Before I correct the "official" translation, I looked around where why the "Mobile Armored Riot Police" is from. And, looked back all the edition history of "Ghost in the Shell". But, I found only when who first wrote it in Wikipedia, cannot find why it could be "official". Where is the source?

I've not seen such "Mobile Armored Riot Police" in my manga translated by Frederik L Schodt the primary translator(Kodansha bilingual edition). Schodt does it to "a special Powered Suit Assault Force"(Aramaki says in GitS-1 chapter02).

So, I hope my suggestion to publish in the articles, to get public feedbacks.(for months or a year?) If anyone would give some more appropriate suggestion, that's lucky for us.

I'm a Japanese GitS fan born and live in Japan. I believe my "Offensive-Shelled Mobile Unit" 攻offence 殻shell 機動隊mobile-unit is one of the most straight literal appropriate ones. The Section-9 doesn't target "riot". I'm afraid, the existing "Mobile Armored Riot Police" is somehow mistranslation. Why does it lose 攻? "armored"装甲. Shirow's Japanese is so complicated

Sincerely, Nah02114 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Nah02114[reply]

Firstly welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy your stay.
Secondly, your translation is purely that, your translation. Because you are literally translating it from Japanese to English that falls afoul of our Original research policies and you cannot do that I'm afraid.
Thirdly the Mobile Armored Riot Police is sourced. GitS Official Log 1 covers this as the translation the original publishers wanted for the manga and subsequent series. This has been referenced in the main article and elsewhere. If you search through Wikipedia, and the internet in general, you will find this is how Weekly Young Magazine and Kodansha have chosen to interpret the translation, and since they own the publishing properties their translation is the one we use. So while yes it's not literally the translation of the original Japanese, that is how the publishers have chosen to translate it when not calling it Ghost in the Shell. We can only use what reliable sources state, not what we think it should be. We don't make thinks up or translate ourselves on Wikipedia, only show what reliable sources are saying about subjects etc. Canterbury Tail talk 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

Canterbury TailI don't want to call out any names since this is public space and I'm thinking of a specific user that this is in regards to, but thanks for doing what you're doing. Please don't stress and lose any sleep over it, but know that it's appreciated. :) --Bchill53 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess to being uncertain what you're referring to. But thanks anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Brolly[edit]

At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Brolly&oldid=825626517 on 14 February 2018 you (very properly) made the following edit "(Protected "Joe Brolly": Persistent vandalism ...(expires 13:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)) ...)." (You had previously done the same thing in July 2017, expiring in January 2018). One week after the protection expired, the same vandalism started again - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Brolly&oldid=884464854 - I reverted it, referring to WP:Londonderry - a similar edit has since been made again, described as 'typo'. Unfortunately, I feel that this page may require the protection to be renewed. May I seek your views? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the heads up. Yup articles like this keep getting hit by this continuous vandalism. I suspect it's only a few people, but still. Canterbury Tail talk 23:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The geolocate tool is useful in identifying where the IP editors in question are. Alekksandr (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. There are a couple of them. However the geolocate isn't as accurate as you would think in all situations. Many people use VPNs these days which confuses the issue or their work systems send stuff elsewhere. No matter. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional IRA Derry Brigade[edit]

I see that your reversion of two IP edits on 25 February has itself been reverted by another IP. I have restored the text as it stood prior to that date. Is this article another candidate for semi-protection? There seems to be a pattern of these edits at the moment - you may want to have a look at my user contributions list. While I realise the importance of assuming good faith, I am having increasing difficulty in believing that they are all coincidental/that they are not being organised/orchestrated. Alekksandr (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City F.C.[edit]

Another "heads-up" - I note that you have reverted county name vandalism twice on the above page in as many months. Registered User:MickeyBobPoo edited it earlier to-day with a note that 'The county is called Derry, not Londonderry'. I reverted this edit with a reference to WP:Londonderry, and that user restored his previous edit with a note that 'It is county Derry not County Londonderry', without giving any indication of having read the Wikipedia policy. Alekksandr (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castledawson[edit]

Another "heads-up" - I note that you have reverted county name vandalism nine times on the above page since September 2017. There have been two more instances in the last 72 hours, each of which I have reverted. Would this page be a candidate for semi-protection? Thanks in advance for your thoughts/comments. Alekksandr (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It's kinda low level and easy to spot. Canterbury Tail talk 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Bloch[edit]

Hi, thanks very much for your edits on the new page on Marjorie Bloch. I'm not sure what the protocol is, but looking at her own website, it seems that she identifies as Irish and in my experience with BLP that should influence what nationality is used in her biography? Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great reference actually, I didn't look for one. Self identification of Irish is perfect in this case, even though it's a primary source. I'll use it and reinstate. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm not well versed in BLP, I tend to stick to historic women! Really appreciate your help there! Smirkybec (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Northern Ireland situation is obviously complex. Wikipedia convention is if someone from Northern Ireland is to be described as Irish we need a source, as they'll be British otherwise normally since it's a British country. Generally the consensus is to just stick with the neutral "from Northern Ireland" unless a source can be provided one way or another. Canterbury Tail talk 22:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coleraine[edit]

Hi, you removed an entry I made in the Notable People section of the page for Coleraine because of the external link. Do I need to create a separate bio page in Wikipedia instead for it to be a valid entry? I thought an external link would be okay in this case. It seemed a bit redundant to create a bio page when one already existed.

Per WP:CITSTRUCT, no article then no inclusion. If someone doesn't have an article then they're not eligible for inclusion. Plus is this person really notable? Canterbury Tail talk 14:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the hard requirement to have a separate entry. It is difficult to assess what merits inclusion in terms of "notable". I know it is very subjective. The person in question has made a significant contribution to the preservation of the Irish language through his Irish language publications and his translations of books such as "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe". Is that more or less notable than a bronze in the commonwealth games in skeet shooting? What is the best approach in order not to waste people's time - propose the changes first in the talk section for the page?

I think the first step is to create an article for the person, as without that they can't be added to the Coleraine page. If the person is notable (i.e. has an article that people are okay with) then they can readily be linked from Coleraine. For this I'd refer you to WP:Notability, WP:FIRSTARTICLE. Good luck. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roppongi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akasaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article on South Derry Independent Republican Unit proposed for deletion[edit]

Greetings. The article titled "South Derry Independent Republican Unit" on which you have contributed has been nominated for deletion. The related discussion takes place here. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI on Zweihänder (role-playing game) page[edit]

Hello,

I just made an edit to the page. If you feel the continued use of the tag is warranted, by all means let it stay. But you need to start the talk page discussion - remember what {{COI}} says: If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

Also, I read your edit summaries. I need to quote this too: Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia. I can only hope this isn't the case here.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They did identify themselves on Wikipedia. See the first edit in their sandbox here. That's how I knew. I would never have done so if they hadn't made that declaration. And no thanks for the cleanup. Something I always meant to go back to. I see no reason for the COI tag any longer as the game is notable now. Canterbury Tail talk 01:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Admin Day!![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, Mjs1991 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hepworth[edit]

I have restored Barbara Hepworth as a notable person, some would say the most notable Wakefield native. She has her own page, linked earlier. --TedColes (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC) These are all legitimate citations of a legitimate publication. In particular the Jimmy Carter in plains and Florida Governors books that Robert Buccellato are either the only ones of their kind or the only ones of recent publication. The removals of these links is not justified and it was the purpose of their inclusion to provide options of further reading. In fact the Florida Governors book was cited by a FSU textbook written by the former president of the American Bar Association. Your removal and the threatening of a block is absurd. There was no links added to these citations linking them up to any personally owned website or any website for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.251.194 (talk)

They're not being used to cite and reference anything, they were all just sitting there on the pages. Plus since all your edits are to add this author's works that's a violation of COI and promotional. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Jeffress[edit]

Hello - You have removed a great amount of information from Arthur Jeffress's page. A small community of us have been collecting information on him over the past few years. You claim it was improving the writing of the page.. but you removed critical content. For example you removed all mention of his cars .. but his love of cars lead him to his War time activities and his car are of great interest to some. Further the information on his gender express is another topic of great interest. I appreciate your help to improve the page but please understand the information that was deleted is very important to many who may wish to understand the full life and context of Arthur Jeffress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canterbuy Tail - sorry I forgot to sign in on the above post ... it was from me ... look forward to chatting - Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattporta (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linkage on 20/25 Rolls-Royce[edit]

You have remove very important external link on this page .. saying the linkage were not relevant to the topic.

The RROC and RREC websites have robust technical, performance and historical information on the 20/25. They also have live forums and a deep historical catalog discussion. It is simple the best on-line source of information on the topic. However, it does require a fee to access (I believe it is a $35 member fee.)

Fiennes has highly detailed technical information on each series of the 20/25 all 36 of them! I agree that their site is a bit confusing and there are a number of ways to get at the information .. the "front door" is to go to Cars -> Rolls-Royce -> Rolls-Royce 20/25 (you are now at general information on 20/25s... from here you can get the detailed technical information for each series. This is not just for buying parts from them .. it is viewed as the best summary of the technical specs for these cars.

I did not put these on the site but I full agree that they are three of the most important links for anyone that want to get more detailed information on these cars.

Hope this clarifies things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattporta (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I click the links and the page I go to doesn't even mention the Rolls-Royce 20/25. External links should not be general sites, unless that generality is what the article is about. If the article was about Rolls Royce generally then they'd be appropriate, but the article is about the 20/25 specifically and therefore the links need to be adding specific information about the 20/25 specifically. Yet they don't. If you can find the specific page about the 20/25 then it's appropriate, the fact the pages are general means they're not suitable for the article per WP:ELNO, specifically point #13. This is the Wikipedia guideline on external links. If there is a specific page then update the links to those specific pages, otherwise they will be removed as violating the external link policies pointed out above. Canterbury Tail talk 00:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Riviera[edit]

Hi Canterterbury. The guidance, which you linked to in your edit summary, says this (my emphasis): Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates."? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. However the nationality/locale should still be in the opening, but I'll be completely honest I didn't notice the not in the brackets bit. Sheesh that's a lot of violating articles in the project then. I will not edit it again, feel free to make adjustments as you see fit. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

irreversible deletion of part of my user page[edit]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding or mistake here. You seem to have accused me of linking to some unnamed malicious Web site from my user page and irreversibly deleting part of my user page even though my user page contained nothing malicious and did not link to anything malicious either. I really hope that you are able to undo your change to my user page because apparently I cannot undo it because you appear to have irreversibly deleted that part of my user page. I did not keep a copy of my user page anywhere outside of the user page itself because I did not realise that another Wikipedia user could irreversibly delete part of my user page. What did you believe was a malicious Web site linked to by my user page? The only thing I can think of that could be considered malicious is http : // del . icio . us/ because currently I get an “Internal server error” page when I access this host name so maybe this host name has been repurposed for something malicious even though it was originally an innocent social bookmarking service. If I recall correctly, the only other links to external sites in the versions of my user page that you have irreversibly deleted were to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at archive.org and to Fraser River Rugged Computers and Technology at frrct.com but I do not know how you could reasonably believe that either of these Web sites are malicious, especially considering that many Wikipedia articles already link to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

“Errors:

The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: icio . us”


Yes, apparently I was correct. This Web site that I now cannot directly name was not malicious when I linked to it, presumably because the domain name has been registered by someone else since I linked to it. This is indeed your user error; again, I really hope that you can undo your deletions because I have clearly done nothing wrong. --Brolin Empey 21:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That link to the site for Fraser River is a purely malicious link hosting malware and cannot be on Wikipedia. According to registrars the Fraser River link hasn't changed names or owners since being registered in 2017, a year before you linked to it. The only way to remove it completely so no one else could see it was to delete the revisions. So no I won't be reverting those edits. If this is not what is supposed to be hosted at that link, then it has been hacked and overridden, but the link has clearly not been re-registered.
Additionally it should be noted, after looking at the registrar records, that you cannot use Wikipedia to advertise yourself or pages or services, that is not what Wikipedia is for. So that link would have had to be removed anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 21:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if we are both seeing the same thing when we access the http://frrct.com/ Web site. Yes, I am part of this company but this Web site does not distribute any software at all, never mind malicious software, unless the WordPress installation has been compromised in a way that you have noticed but I have not noticed? Can you please email me a screen capture showing what you believe is malicious on the http://frrct.com/ Web site? My email address is brolin@brolin.be . I seriously do not know of anything malicious on this Web site so I do not know if you are seeing the same thing as me when you access this Web site. I understand what you are saying about not using Wikipedia for advertising but I do not know if that applies in this case because the link in question was on my own user page, not on a regular page in the main namespace. --Brolin Empey 22:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs)
If the document title of http://frrct.com/ is not “Fraser River Rugged – making life easier for mobile workers” then I think you are somehow seeing something other than the real http://frrct.com/ Web site. This Web site is about a real company, not about anything malicious. --Brolin Empey 22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs)
I will not hit such a page again, I had to pull the plug and shut down my machine the first time I clicked that link, I'm not trying it again. It was a redirect to a site with popups trying to get me to click on links to get free iPads with popup dialog boxes. Clearly not a corporate website. Anyway if you are part of the company as you mention then it is against policy for you to advertise it on your userpage. Canterbury Tail talk 23:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had something similar happen once weeks or months ago when I tried to access the http://frrct.com/ Web site but it happened only once and I still do not know how it happened because, as far as I know, neither my client computer nor the server has been compromised. I have not actually tried to find the relevant Wikipedia policy to see if you are correct about me being forbidden from linking to a company in which I am involved on my own user page so I will assume that you are correct for now. However, I want to recover the rest of my user page that you deleted because I cannot find a copy of it anywhere else. Please restore my last version of my user page but without the part that links to http://frrct.com/ . --Brolin Empey 00:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately I am unable to do so, I can only repress entire edits, not portions of such. The relevant policies about the company are WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Canterbury Tail talk 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet even opened those links because I have been too busy with other stuff but I wanted to say that I restored my user page without the part about FRRCT thanks to the message you left on my user talk page and that the cause of a dodgy page being served was an include instruction that had been added to the index.php file of the WordPress installation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm glad you found the issue on your website. Sorry for the accusation, but all I saw was a link that went out and has malicious content and as an administrator I had an obligation to protect the users of this project, which meant not just deleting but purging the link from the site so no one could find it, which is why you lost everything in those edits. I'm glad you've managed to restore access to your website and purge the issue. Canterbury Tail talk 10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments to where a GAA club is based[edit]

I amended the locations of these GAA clubs as the location within a county is inaccurate. GAA clubs are based on the old parish system which does not fit into the more modern county based system. Many clubs will be based across 2 or more county boundaries so the system which you insist on applying is highly inaccurate. You have obviously no knowledge of this and should therefore refrain from commenting and showing your ignorance. In any case, modern postal addresses in Northern Ireland no longer use the County system but rather the Local District area. These District Areas are not entirely 100% accurate in the case of where a GAA club is based but they are much more accurate that the outdated county based system which you seem to be obsessed with. Please re-amend these inaccuracies in which you have decided to tamper and leave incorrect. Pb3166 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Pb3166 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you committed vandalism to remove any reference to County Londonderry that history shows you don't appear to like and you altered the name of a city against Wikipedia's policies. Example this edit where you both deleted the county name, you also changed the name of the city to a redirect that just goes back to Derry (you renamed Derry on many articles to the incorrect Derry City in violation of WP:DERRY). this edit where you removed the County Londonderry from a link so the Ballykelly link no longer links to the town but a disambiguation page, and you did this multiple times and the way it was done just shows that you were only interested in removing references to County Londonderry for whatever reason, not to update or fix anything legitimately. this edit you mention you've fixed a typo when you remove the county, definitely not a fixing of a typo but the deliberate deletion of the name. You altered references to the locations of places to be that other than what the very own articles about those places state and what the postal addresses state they are. How the GAA refers to places is completely irrelevant to the actual physical location of places and while counties may not be used for governmental reasons any longer, they are still very much used for the postal system. Anyway the GAA actually uses these counties to refer to the locations and organization for these GAA clubs, not the parish system (which would be on a hyperlocal scale anyway and not a larger scale such as a governmental district), so your GAA argument carries zero water. You simply altered (badly) established physical locations to governmental entities which was not accurate or appropriate to the articles. And your edit history is full of such disruptive edits and it appears to be practically your only reason for editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 23:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:HeHe8888[edit]

I thought I'd let you know that the template you placed on User talk:HeHe8888 says that HeHe888 was blocked temporarily, yet you blocked them indefinitely. - ZLEA T\C 20:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Thanks for the heads up. Sometimes the fingers think faster than the brain. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portrush[edit]

Just a heads-up - your "rv county name vandalism per WP:DERRY" at 15:26 on 18/7/19" was itself changed back at 19:03 (after an intermediate edit about Great Britain). I have taken the liberty of restoring the page to the 15:26 version. I cannot help suspecting that the amount of edits on this page has something to do with interest generated by the current golf Open. Would it be worth semi-protecting it, at least until the Open ends? Alekksandr (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notables[edit]

Hi. I see you removed most of the list and I don't have anthing against such a move if it is meeting guidelines. I just want to ask can I add one or two persons there that have articles but on other language version of Wikipedia? You said they must have articles to be included; they have articles but not English Wikipedia articles but German and Serbian. --Obsuser (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately things existing on other Wiki's don't count. This is the English language Wikipedia, and while we can have links to other wikis for subjects we shouldn't be cross linking as that would be an easter egg. Odds are the reader doesn't speak the language of that target Wiki which is why they're using the English language version one and not that target one. Since English Wikipedia has different guidelines to other Wikipedia's we cannot make an assessment that their article meets anything of what we would consider standards.
That being said, you can always make the article's on the English wiki and translate from the other language one, though there is the possibility that some work would need to be done to bring to our standards and you'd need to ensure they meet English language Wiki's standards of notability. Canterbury Tail talk 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada[edit]

Hi Canterbury ~ nice to meet you, can you explain your summary on this edit here ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I accidentally hit the wrong key and submitted too early. It should have said failed WP:AIRCRASH. Basically that incident didn't result in fatalities or loss or hull or major procedure changes, so it's not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ufufcgug / Nbmmplo is back[edit]

Hi Canterbury Tail, you blocked Nbmmplo as a sock of Ufufcguc. Maybe you'd have time to take a look at Special:Contributions/Xqq1238? It seems they're continuing with the same disruptive editing. I made an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc a while ago, but I guess there's a backlog or something. I just updated it with more info. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

.... Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62#OpenStreetMap..--Moxy 🍁 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain (29 Jan 1977)[edit]

I see you disagree that the IRA attacks in London in 1977 had nothing to do with the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. I disagree, look at the year before 1976, they carried out attacks around the same date with a same number of bombs in the West End of London, same as 1975 as well, loads of bombs in upper class London. Also other Republican groups do simiar things, like the Irish National Liberation Army carry out attacks around the anniversary of internment. The IRA had not bombed England for almost a year & then attack it the day before Bloody Sunday, look at the 1992, 93 & 94 attacks in England all happen on Bloody Sunday. Check similar anniversarys same out outcome. 04:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC) TommySocialist

Got a reference that says that? You have an event on a different calendar date, not the 5th anniversary. You'll need a reference to state that it was deliberate for fifth anniversary, otherwise that's purely your own original research. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glock 19 usage in Special Air Service article[edit]

You reverted my edit on the use of Glock 19s based on IMFDB being an "unreliable" source. What would be the correct way of sourcing this this? The problem is that there are news sources covering this exercise where these pictures came from (linked in the IMFDB source) but they do not contain commentary on what the pistol is. If you know what a Glock 19 is then you can see it in the picture, but if you don't the news sources provide no information. Would the only acceptable source be something that explicitly called it a Glock 19? The reason I used the IMFDB link is that this is the only source I can find that discusses the fact that the pictured pistols are Glock 19s. --Optimash Prime (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately unless you can find a reliable source that meets WP:RS then you can't include it. At this point saying it looks like a Glock 19 is pure WP:Original research and not admissible on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Blenz Coffee[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Blenz Coffee, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, not hugely attached to it in all honesty. I can see that as the article now is it seems like advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic[edit]

Hi, my edit on Titanic was just to bring it in line with other ship articles; the port-of-registry is the important aspect of a ship's national origin and is lettered on the stern and the hull. Ships generally aren't referred to as "American", "British", "Chinese" etc., it's the port-of-registry that is important. I think it should be included; would you like to discuss it or would you be happy for it to be re-added?

Thanks, BBX118 11:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I must say I don't see that trend in any other ship articles, and there is nothing about it in WP:SHIPS. I see many ship articles that just state they're British XXX, American XXX etc, so I don't see what articles this is intended to bring it in line with. That said it seems actually more common, especially around cruise ship type articles, to state that it belongs to X company instead. I.e. Titanic was a passenger liner of the British White Star Line would actually seem to be more in line with what the other articles use. I could support that unless someone else objects on the article talk. To be honest, I've always found the concept that objects can have nationality to be a bit odd anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into it further, WP:SHIPMOS has some things to say about it, especially Introductory Sentence, but it's not exactly completely clear or prescriptive either way. So I think perhaps dealing with it on the basis of the company instead of the ship is better. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ryan Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballykelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Island without any admin data[edit]

FYI, I have 'created' a pruned version of the British Isles infobox at User:Red King/sandbox - I just took out the political geography lines. It has no administration info and looks fine to me. It doesn't have an unpopulated Administration header so presumably the programming is good enough to spot that no content means no need for one. Comments? --Red King (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but I think we need some way of indicating the states. Just a simple header for countries or the like with a list of the two main states plus Jersey and Guernsey. Canterbury Tail talk 20:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But why do we need the polities in the infobox, in an article about physical geography? They are covered minimally but adequately in the text. It is wp:UNDUE to have them the infobox as well. Perhaps unintentionally but you underline my objection by wanting to highlight the Channel Islands. They are miniscule, it is wildly disproportionate to give them that precedence. There are civil parishes where I live that have a greater population. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox --Red King (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um... why discuss this here, on a user's talk page, rather than where everyone else is discussing the issue? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: I started a small fork here because Canterbury Tail wrote that they didn't know of a suitable template. So I wanted to do a sanity check on my version of the standard Island template, with none of the polity options completed, to see if I was missing something before going to the main talk page. Which I did subsequently. No conspiracy, just trying to avoid a cockup.--Red King (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No article?[edit]

In a couple of your recent edits you've removed people who do have articles - Marlie Packer and John Strong (colonist). Please don't assume that because an article is unlinked then we have no article. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks for the corrections. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

99.239.222.190[edit]

user:99.239.222.190 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seaton Village[edit]

I've responded to your comments on my Talk page. If you want to continue, I suggest you move everything from my Talk page to where it belongs: the Seaton Village Talk page. Your's in Wiki-editing. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well C. MarnetteD|Talk 04:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A380[edit]

I replied at User_talk:Ex_nihil#A380

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ffrrrrgus[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ffrrrrgus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Plot summary[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Plot summary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Bowyer[edit]

Bowyer's name should have been in the article from day one. Obviously you don't read, there's a whole page on the Bowyer family of pilots including his brother James at Encyclopedia-Titanica.org and I believe in the Geoffrey Marcus 1969 book "The Maiden Voyage". Bowyer was good friends with Captain Smith and expected Smith and the Titanic to return in a couple of weeks. That's why he was quoted as saying "..see you in two weeks E.J." when he got off in the pilot boat and the Titanic continued on to Cherbourg. If Bowyer is unimportant, why is Francis Carruthers name included in the article as the Board of Trade representative? Koplimek (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page. You were bold, you were reverted, it's up to you to discuss and not edit war it back in per WP:BRD. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qumram / Yes Minister[edit]

Why did you revert my edit pointing to the real place Qumran on the Yes, Minister page? I believe the connection is interesting, and not one most people know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.58.233.166 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly said the country was fictional, so no mistaking it for a real archaeological site. As a result it's unnecessary trivia that just complicates the flow while adding nothing to it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic article[edit]

I think you missed my explanation in the summary; I removed the mentions of Andrews and Smith's fate, because I think they reside more properly on their respective articles 2.97.27.181 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right, missed that. Reverted myself. Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that this is the same editor behind the Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic LTA: previous blocked IPs include [2][3][4]. Note the same IP provider, same geolocation and same focus on the Titanic, Doctor Who and Jimmy Hoffa. Previous charm offensives include [5] and [6]. DrKay (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm those offensives, and I am sorry for acting before reason those times, but I have learned more on how to give reliable sources when editing. I am just asking now for a fair shot.2.97.27.181 (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to take any administrative action as long as you continue to edit responsibly. DrKay (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

102nd (Ulster) Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery[edit]

Ah yes, sorry about that, however, "Antrim, Ireland" redirects to "County, Antrim", but yes you are correct and also thank you for specifying it. LucasA04 (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh not a problem, no issues here. Canterbury Tail talk 10:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She-Ra[edit]

I would like to ask a favor. We requested She-Ra for semi-protection on RPP.

However, there are about 8 editors all vandalizing all at once and have been for the last while, and we can't keep up. Take a glance at the revision history.

Since you are online right now, can you please protect so we don't have to wait the hours for RPP?

Thanks, Hillelfrei• talk • 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In the process of protecting other articles they've moved onto and blocking accounts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: Great, thanks for the swift response. Hillelfrei• talk • 19:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hillelfrei: Blocked about 9 accounts so far, and several IPs. Will keep looking to see if there's more. Looks like that's it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news


Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Question Regarding Being Historically Correct[edit]

Hi,

to avoid a barring I am coming to you to ask this question:

The issue that I have is that in the articles for the White Star Line ships that were built before a specific date in history - there is an issue with at least two other editors who disagree with the info that I have added and feel that they should remove it constantly.

When Northern Ireland was created in 1921, all ships built at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast were constructed in Northern Ireland. All ships before that date were constructed in "Ireland", as historically at that point it was "Ireland" and not "Northern Ireland" - but historically and for the article whilst after some consideration disagreeing with others that claim that it is "historically sensitive" - pre 1920 and the Act of Separation then Belfast was in fact officially located in Ireland.

So for all ships pre 1921 - should they have been categorised as built in Ireland or do we take the country off next to Belfast in the article - which is incorrect to satisfy some other Wikipedia editors and not keep a neutral and correct point of view?

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are two issues here. 1) the field on the ships infobox you're putting the country into specifically says not to include the country, so adding the country, no matter what it is, is completely against the infobox guidelines and should be removed. 2) Ireland refers to an island. Belfast is currently in Northern Ireland. Prior to 1921 it was simply in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland wasn't a separate country, it's just a landmass so as a country is technically incorrect. The correct country should be United Kingdom. So 1) taking the country off isn't incorrect as those are the guidelines for using the infobox and 2) it's not historically incorrect since Ireland technically wasn't a separate country pre 1921. Personally I'd accept Ireland pre 1921, however this is irrelevant for this conversation as it's very specifically about a field that prohibits the use of a country. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gretna Nebraska[edit]

This keeps getting whitewashed. The city administrator issue has been completely removed. Can you show me how to add it without being excessive and the crime information.

The city administrator was convicted of the theft. Farmingsmalltownhero (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's completely non-notable and of zero encyclopaedic interest to a non-resident. Wikipedia articles should be relevant and accessible to the world, not just about minor completely non-notable community issues. Someone convicted of stealing $5k is completely non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people in Fort Saskatchewan[edit]

Hello,

I wanted to ask you about your removal of Walter Thomas from Fort Saskatchewan's list of notable people. There was a news article cited in the fire department section, which is why I did not re-cite it. Please can you review these articles, and let me know if they are sufficient to warrant his inclusion on the list? I am still learning, and don't want to keep making the same mistakes. I appreciate your help, thank you.

https://fortsaskonline.com/local/fort-saskatchewan-remembers-walter-thomas https://fortsaskonline.com/local/walter-thomas-passed-away-at-95 There are also articles about him in the Alberta Fire Chiefs Association newsletter, but I cannot link them here because they are PDF downloads. CplKlinger (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I looked at the guidelines and now understand that you meant articles on Wikipedia, and not news articles as I had understood it. Please disregard my question. CplKlinger (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

I see you blocked Lordlugus. I believe it was a good block, however, I cannot see any vandalism in their contributions. Can you please explain why you labeled their actions vandalism?Lurking shadow (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The altering of content that does not adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability or WP:OR is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and is therefore vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND; the changes look like disruptive editing, they look like violations of NPOV, but they could be misguided attempts to change it to what they percieve to be WP:NPOV, and that is not vandalism.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Years on Wikipedia![edit]

Hey, Canterbury Tail. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many congrats on the anniversary as well as many thanks for your work on the 'pedia CT. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Dear Canterbury Tail/Archive 15,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Wishing Canterbury Tail a very Tail happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Aasim 08:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very Tail happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know...[edit]

I've contributed anonymously on Wikipedia and other Wikis for over 10 years (although it doesn't look like that because I get different IP addresses) and met a multitude of administrators along the way, and the best one of all I identified is you.

Anyway, I got a few issues regarding the Hong Kong articles. Recently, the United States Department of State indicated that the Special Autonomous Territory of China is no longer such independent state after the Communist government in Beijing passed a Security Act into law. This means it's technically no longer a One Country, Two Systems, although apparently, Macau also had one Security Act for some time with few consequences. Just wondering if this would be a good idea to add mentions to that, even though you may not be acknowledging it? Appericated. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:49CC:D744:E787:6C9 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the situation in honesty, though obviously the views of the United States are actually irrelevant to anything related to Hong Kong. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Although I also question the neutrality of the articles mentioned. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:49CC:D744:E787:6C9 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland murals[edit]

Hi, thanks for your revision on the Northern Ireland page. I had a quick look on wikicommons but couldn't find one which fit your suggested criteria. I made a different addition however. The dual flag image used for the symbol section had the Ulster Banner clear and in the forefront but the Irish flag barely visible. I searched wikicommons and put the closest photo I could find to a similar-sized view of both symbols.

Thanks, BBX118 18:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that image replacement is a good one. It really symbolises the community divide and throws both symbols into contrast rather than the previous one where the tricolour was really an afterthought. Canterbury Tail talk 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Keenan[edit]

By way of 'heads-up', see Brian Keenan (Irish republican) - user 109.255.17.249 has been amending 'County Londonderry' to 'County Derry' with the following justifications 'Londerry to Derry. Completely ridiculous and disrespectful to the man who fought for Irish freedom to then call his birth place Londonderry. He was born in Derry' and, after I had reverted the above, referring to WP:Londonderry, 'The man was born in Derry. There is no Londerry and not once in his life would he have ever called it that.' Alekksandr (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, run of the mill county name stuff. We've both seen it before. Just point them at the guideline page. If you want you can say that people don't get to decide what to call things, but this is just regular stuff. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added the article to my watchlist. Canterbury Tail talk 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There was another identical edit (by another IP editor) at 7.37 this morning, which I reverted at 8.20 - once again inviting discussion at the talk page. Unfortunately this seems to be a case where the IP editors in question (or at least the first of them) neither pay any attention to the MOS nor engage in discussion at the talk page. I am keen to avoid falling foul of the rules on edit warring. In my experience, most county name edits are not repeated after being reverted. This seems to be an exception to that general rule. If there are any further similar edits, I feel that this page may be a candidate for semi-protection. Alekksandr (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see the same patterns, a flurry and then it stops. I've put a month's semi-protection on it as it seems like the only edits are really these disruptive edits so it shouldn't cause any collateral damage on the article. Canterbury Tail talk 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airgialla in the Annals[edit]

Hi, I don't normally get involved in Wikipedia edits, but I see an inaccuracy on the Airgialla, I see that you are active on it, and I don't want to accidentally vandalise anything.

The text on the page says the following: "The earliest reference to the Airgíalla occurs in the Annals of Tigernach under the year 677, where the death of Dunchad mac Ultan, "Rí Oigriall", is noted. However, it is suspected of being a retrospective interpolation. On the other hand, the entry in the Annals of Ulster under the year 697 which lists Mael Fothataig mac Mael Dub as "Rex na nAirgialla" may indeed be genuine."

Shortly after I read that, I looked at the Annals of Ulster entry for 514, which include the following: "Cairpre Daim Airgit son of Eochu son of Crimthann son of Fiach son of Daig Duirn son of Reochad son of Colla Dá Crích, king of Airgialla, died." There is therefore an earlier reference to the Airgialla. (That format would usually mean that it is Cairpre Daim Airgit who is being described as king.)

This quote can be found in the 514 entry on the following online edition of the Annals of Ulster: https://celt.ucc.ie//published/T100001A/

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.24.15 (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Radio[edit]

Thanks for removing the social media links from Talk Radio. There's an ongoing battle at the moment with someone who claims to have built the article from a stub. Please may I bring your attention to Talk:Talk Radio where there's a discussion and a consensus about adding non-notable presenters to the list of on-air talent. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean Talk:Times Radio. - Funky Snack (Talk) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derry Girls[edit]

While it's fun having it on my watchlist and seeing you try to beat back the tide, creating Template:Editnotices/Page/Derry Girls might save you a lot of effort. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've never used that template before. Honestly when it comes to Northern Ireland related topics, editors in my experience don't read notices like that and just ignore or remove them to push their edits. It's an idea that may be worth trying though, thanks for that. Canterbury Tail talk 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:C7F:8C03:7900:BCEB:65E3:B36A:5E3F (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Uncalled for behavior[edit]

This Is Unsatisfactory For Defending Thelimiter, Which That User is a Sockpuppeter of Troydevinny545, I'm Telling You Right Now. One TheLimiter Is Still Banned For Sockpuppeting Pages, You Move On. You Don't Stop to Vandalism. Do not do something like that again.

Excuse me? You are removing valid maintenance templates that have been in place for years that do legitimately address items that need addressing. No one is defending anyone, I'm asking you to stop deleting maintenance templates. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Curious, why are "External links" sections plural if they only want you to add one link? For Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government, I can see why the tourism link is not appropriate, but the link to the Grand Council of the Crees is relevant because it's an official tribal group which makes up one half of the government. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title is a Wikipedia standard, the restriction is part of the Canadian Wikiproject so you'd need to take that up there. Anyway that link isn't eligible per WP:EL because if I click on it it contains nothing about the town, and anyway the Cree have their own article for which that link is more suitable. The link simply isn't about the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government area. Canterbury Tail talk 10:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you’ve been adding/correcting pages that need the term Northern Ireland adding to them, I found two pages that appear to be based in Northern Ireland, but I’m not sure if the country needs adding, if so, please go ahead and add it, the articles are East Belfast GAA and Republican Memorial, Crossmaglen. 2600:1700:F0E0:7DD0:8D3F:571A:CF84:C9E9 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on the Canada page? Australia has their Deputy Prime Minister on its page and America has the Vice President on its page, so why shouldn’t Canada have Freeland listed as DPM? and it’s the second most powerful political office in the Canadian gov. Thank you . Ciaran.london (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Deputy Prime Minister is a nothing position. United Kingdom doesn't do it, many other countries don't do it. No consensus to add it. If you want to add it, get consensus on the talk page. You were bold, you were reverted, now if you really think it's needed (I don't) then take it to the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 23:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdv123. I don't believe checkuser will be available as it's over two years since Tdv123 was blocked, so hopefully I've done a good enough job comparing their editing style. FDW777 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Jedi Amputee Category[edit]

Hi, regarding the Films about amputees category for Return of the Jedi, you mentioned that you removed this category because it was not a defining feature and because it's not usually described as a film about an amputee, but I don't see how that makes it any less true. Because even if it's not the main focus of the story, the fact remains that the central character still has a cybernetic hand, so I'm not sure why the fact that it does not have a huge role in the plot means the category should be removed.The Editor 155 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, it's not a defining category. Per WP:CATDEFINING "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" It's not defining, anymore than it being a film with people in helmets would be defining. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for clarifying.The Editor 155 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

Sorry about that. I completely didn't see that. That's my bad for not clicking on the link. It's weird that the 'C' is capitalized, but what you said is definitely true. I assumed that it was regarding the show. Lighthead þ 01:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand where it came from. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lighthead þ 19:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam B[edit]

Could you do the necessary regarding the IP at Adam B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:194.56.199.160 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: ) please? FDW777 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked, so hopefully resolved. FDW777 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathmore Grammar School[edit]

Dear Canterbury Tail

You have twice removed Andy Black, Ireland's top poker player from tne notable past pupils section. I am keen to know as I am a past pupil of Rathmore and know perfectly well he was a student there. I should add that on multiple peoples bios there is no evidence independently cited of where they went to school. For example on Andrew Black's bio, it states he went to Trinity College Dublin (with no evidence, although I know he did), yet this has never been queried. So what evidence would be needed to prove he went to Rathmore? should I ask him to send some kind of academic certificate? And how would I reference that. This would seem like a much higher standard of evidence than pretty well all the bios I have read so far.

I should also point out that for attending Rathmore no independent evidence at all is cited in the listings for Vivien Campbell and Claire Hanna. So why did you not choose to remove those listings? Should you now remove them, or should I?

Am keen to understand as am new to Wiki editing and am finding this rather inconsistent.


Anything that does not have a reference can be challenged and removed. If people request a reference, then a reference must be provided. If it cannot be referenced then ultimately it cannot be added to Wikipedia. If there is no evidence of other people attending Rathmore then yes, they can and should be removed. References can be as simple as a published interview, newspaper article etc. Generally there are two ways unreferenced material is managed, when it's added in which case editors sometimes challenge and remove immediately, and older text that can be marked with a Citation Needed template {{CN}}. All references and referencing should be done in line with WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
I should note though that you also have a conflict of interest with Andy Black and need to follow the COI guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


So let me get this straight: going to the same school as Andrew Black (with hundreds of other folks), who was in another year, and seeing him wear a school uniform, represents a conflict of interest? That seems rather a far stretch.

Also, you still have not explained why you removed my edit, but not others postings with no obvious link to Rathmore. Why did you remove that notable person citing no link but not two others, also citing the same thing - no link? And no, I don't want to remove them as then I would just spend my time removing about half the school and university links on Wikipedia bios and to my mind that would not be helpful. Especially since i really would like to build the alumni section of my old school.

(talk) 12:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)TurfWars[reply]

I did not remove the others because I was only looking at your edit as the most recent edit to the article which was surfaced as it is on my watchlist, nothing else. Nothing nefarious here. As for the COI, you did state you personnally know him. If this is not the case, and it's just a passing awareness and acquaintance, then its not an issue. 20:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi, I'm Blazer Phoenix (Blazing Phoenix was already taken lol). Sorry about Star Wars edits, I was referring to DVD titles, not the opening crawl. By the way I reached 500 edits after a month, but I'm still Autoconfirmed. What's wrong? Should I wait or contact someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm Extended now. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello. Thanks for assisting with the incident which I've placed onto the noticeboard. You have saved much headache! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just don't get yourself pulled into an edit war, even if you are sure the other party is in the wrong, it could end up with you being blocked also. Best to stop and obtain outside eyes rather than continue to edit. Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the insight. It is why I am so happy the other user who I have also been involved in conflict with on article contributions has taken time to converse with me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam B[edit]

Thanks for correcting the infobox! I was in the middle of trying to figure out how that was happening to correct it myself but by the time finally found the issue, you had corrected it. I'm slow. :) S0091 (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reigate School[edit]

You dropped a copy-vio allegation on my talk page. Can you be more specific about what was the copy-vio as it was unintentional if it was? Thanks Fob.schools (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but its not possible to paraphrase a rule or policy like that. The whole point of a uniform policy being specific is that no variation is allowed. Its a direct quotation rather than copy-vio. If its not allowed, it means an end to uniform sections other than saying “Its blue, black and white” which is WP:OR and a misrepresentation of the facts. Its a selective extract. Fob.schools (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also unencyclopaedic in detail. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calebemerson2[edit]

As Calebemerson2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now claiming the Bloody Sunday victims were armed, perhaps some intervention is needed please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my Gallery of people skiing that "adds nothing". They're almost the only shots that actually show the icefield.[edit]

Hello, Canterbury Tail... Even the top right photo shows virtually nothing of the Columbia Icefield (a thin line across part of the middle of the pic). And there's one more image that shows some of the icefield with Castleguard, whereas the gallery showed vast expanses of icefield (as did my top right photo, IIRC). People interested in coming here want to see what the icefield looks like and if they wanted the Athabasca Glacier, they'd go to that article. You remind me of the people on Google Earth who add photos of themselves with say, a Snowcoach, and place them far past the Athabasca Glacier Headwzall where no snowcoach can ever go. Before I put my Gallery back, I wanted to touch base with you and see if we can agree - I don't particularly want an edit war. What's your opinion now, please? And have you been to the Columbia Icefield? BrettA343 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again... In case you don't get notified without a ping, here's one now... @Canterbury Tail: BrettA343 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what edits and articles are we talking about here? Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm sorry @Canterbury Tail: - my bad - I should have included links. I'm talking about the Columbia Icefield article where your deletion of the Gallery on 25 August gave the reason "Gallery (Skiing Shots) - remove gallery of people skiing, adds nothing to the article". As the title of this post says, these shots are almost the only shots of the icefield. Now there is only one pic remaining now that shows the Columbia Icefield while my Gallery shots showed a diverse group of 4 (IIRC). Along with this but likely not attributable to you, someone removed my top right shot of the icefield and replaced it with a shot of the Athabasca Glacier, which has its own article. Worse still, it appearns to be the same image as the current Athabasca Glacier shot. This new top right pic shows the icefield in about 3-5% of the photo and I intend to replace it with a Columbia Icefield shot as well. Anyway, I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm touching base with you first about the gallery. BrettA343 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right on the image of the Athabasca Glacier being placed over yours, and it has its own article yes, that is by an editor who we've had issues with continually promoting their own photos. Feel free to reinstate the icefield photo up there. As for the skiers, those photos felt more like holiday snaps than photos of encyclopaedic value. If you had ones without the skiers being the focal points it would be better and they could be more useful. I'd also recommend not having the one with the watermark in the corner as it's counteracts the image being released for free. I'm not against them in general, it just seems the subjects are not the icefield but the skiers. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mt._Alberta_from_the_Columbia_Icefield
I wonder if my text isn't too much on 'skiing' (captions and Gallery Title) and if I took some of that away it wounld help, because I think without the skiers, they loose depth (especially when there are 2 skiers - one closer and one farther away). I have this one to the right with and without skiers and it looks pretty flat without the skiers. I can't claim to know much about 'encyclopaedic value' yet, but I think some value is there when the option is no photos (or in this case 1 or 2 photos), in as diverse and large a place as the Columbia Icefield. I also think many people who take the snowcoach trip up the Athabasca Glacier and even those thousandss of people who drive by every year would be interested in seeing what's back there, on and around the icefield.
Regarding the watermarks, I don't care if some Wikipedian could remove them but sadly all the original Kodachrome slides are toast (don't ask!), so I can't reproduce them without watermarks. That isn't necessarily true in the long term... if my wife finds 3 hard drives she put away, there's a chance I might have some without watermarks, but for now it's true. Also relevant is that I shut down my company Intersite Imaging, re the watermarks 8 or 10 years ago, so they're promoting nothing right now. BrettA343 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure go for it, I'm not going to object. Oh and I replaced the image of the icefield on the page per your earlier point at the top and remove excessive ones and stuff about the glacier as you also mentioned. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Athabasca
Mts. Athabasca & Andromeda, Athabasca Glacier & Columbia Icefield from Wilcox Pass
Since you obviously care about this article (it looks so to me), I'll keep you abreast of changes (comments welcome), the main one we've not yet discussed is the currently lowest one, of Mt. Athabasca. I'll be replacing a more icefield-oriented shot with Mts. Athabasca and Andromeda, most of the Athabasca Glacier and a bit of the Columbia Icefield. Mine has, I think, several advantages...
  • It shows the relative positions of all 4 features.
  • It shows a common approach to the Columbia Icefield (the Athabasca Glacier)
  • It implies a good viewpoint (i.e. Wilcox Pass)
  • It avoids shoulder & Head shots of passers-by (if you don't like my skiers, I suspect you're not fond of these folk)
  • It avoids a bit of highway guardrail.
  • It gets the top two mountains in the accompanying list
  • The old one's file description is more accurate (Mt. Athabasca is not really *in* the Columbia Icefield)
  • I've included links for the 3 features that have an article.

I notice that I (ionadvertently " Undid revision 974866614 by Canterbury Tail (talk)", and unless that was adding the gallery back in, it was a mistake (I don't see the number 974866614 anywhere so I'm unclear what I did (the Gallery's a bit different now, BTW). Anyway, I've done what I wanted to do with the Gallery and I removed 'skiing' in several places, but it is what it is. If you have any problems with it, I might work a little harder and seach for other shots without skiers. Best, Brett BrettA343 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and guess what? Your favorite user used the same shot he used on Columbia Icefields and Athabasca Glacier for Jasper Nat'l Park. BrettA343 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Icefield; Mt. Bryce right, our tent left

I just recalled a shot without skiers, so replaced one with skier - see right... FWIW. BrettA343 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

this is me doge567 i will get revenge but here is a kitten for you

Despacito567 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you are the person who blocked me for no reason

You were blocked for clear disruption, deleting text randomly, altering British English articles to US English, altering words to other words so they made no sense, yes you were blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of non-notable on Southall[edit]

I understand what you did and read WP:CITSTRUCT. Why did you leave: Sir Leslie Murphy, Manor House, Golf Links Estate, Naval gun? If it was an oversight - ignore me, or am I missing something? Sciencefish (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the reminder. I left him because he does have an article, it just wasn't linked. After checking for an article I forgot to do the linking. Thank you for raising it and reminding me that I'd missed it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles[edit]

In case you weren't aware, there is some controversy over the term "British Isles" and there has been some edit-warring. It's considered colonialist by some Irish people. What was the "Botanical Society of the British Isles", for example, has re-named itself ".. of Britain and Ireland". However, the problem with replacing "British Isles" by "Britain and Ireland" is that it excludes the Isle of Man, which is part of neither, and creates uncertainty over other off-shore islands, if you define "Britain" and "Ireland" as the two largest islands in the "British Isles". Personally, although part-Irish and part-English, I'm happy with "British Isles", but others aren't. Hopefully you won't tangle with the intolerant (which there are both ways). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm very aware, have been an admin in that area for over a decade. Interesting thing is the Irish government does actually use the term quite a bit for a government that doesn't use it, so the dislike and lack of use is not consistent or even along the lines of what they say. Most Irish people just don't care in honesty, myself included. Thanks for the note though. Canterbury Tail talk 13:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

194.56.199.163[edit]

194.56.199.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is back from the holiday you gave them, and continuing their usual disruption. FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see they ignored your message isn't it? FDW777 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way to see who did an edit?[edit]

I removed the link to the Trove on CoC as you noted. I wanted to see who did it and then cross check their contributions to see if they'd done it elsewhere. However I was unable to even see who added it, is there an easy way to do this? Sciencefish (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can go through the history of the page, and compare edit diffs to see who it was. Just around the history to see roughly where it was added, and then narrow in on the specific one. There's also a tool called WikiBlame that can do it for you, but it's not always accurate. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was added in this edit (note I've deleted the revision of it so no one can get the link to copyrighted material as that's very against Wikipedia's rules.) What you do with that is up to you, however be aware that Wikipedia will not support legal threats and actions on Wikipedia (see WP:LEGAL.) But what you do off site is entirely up to you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And note they don't appear to have added it elsewhere. It seems they like to add things about archives regarding Australia, and are not about adding pirate links to RPG supplements, hence why Terror Australis was the one that got caught here. They've had copyright laws etc made clear to them by our resident copyright experts subsequent to them, so I don't anticipate a repeat of it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It not about legal threats and actions on Wikipedia, just about removing links to the Trove, I've removed a few others I found using :Inarticle Sciencefish (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, your search skills are higher than mine. I need to look up how to use that. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously though, can you teach me how to use that search? Canterbury Tail talk 19:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My error, I used insource. For the trove, I used insource:/thetrove/ in the search field. Be aware that this search is throttled as it uses a lot of resources. Sciencefish (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. You'd think that after being here over 15 years, and being an admin, I'd know some of these tricks better. :) Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Sciencefish, you can enable the Who Wrote That? browser extension. On an article page, you click it in the lefthand list of tools, and then click the text you're curious about – a pop-up will tell you who added it and in which diff (and also highlight all the other content added by that editor). Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, learn something new every day. Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Sciencefish (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the copyvio, Sciencefish and Canterbury Tail, that was me, I'm afraid, and I have just gone back to see what I was doing at the time, because I had little recollection of it. I have no interest in or knowledge of those games (I even had to look up RPG), but it was in connection with my article on National edeposit (an Australian depository for electronic materials) and I must have stumbled across Terror Australis. I now recall taking ages to work out what was what, printed material vs electronic game, hence drilling down to the detail at that level. But was it an actual Trove citation that was removed? I'm sure I would have assumed that anything shown in Trove must be legit. Alternatively, if I linked to something on a dodgy site, I apologise. I was more interested in working out and explaining what this (here in Trove) was, to differentiate it from the book, having had no idea about either. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you linked to wasn't the Australian government site Trove, but a completely different site thetrove.net, a completely different Trove that is full of pirated RPG material. Canterbury Tail talk 01:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit[edit]

I noticed this edit [7] of yours and you refer in the comment to evidence! What research did you undertake to go straight to deletion and bypass wp:agf 92.23.251.229 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reference was provided and there is nothing in his article either referencing a connection. As a result it was deleted as unsourced. Feel free to add it back if you can provide a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a {{fact}} tag for that kind of thing, or you could have written to the author and given a few days to rectify the issue. Conor Henry was not the only person on that list that was unsourced, yet they remained??92.23.251.229 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a <ref> tag for when you're adding that kind of thing, but since you know about tags you probably knew that anyway. FDW777 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any unsourced material can be challenged and removed. Best time to check if material is sourced is when it's added. Additionally since all the categories on Conor Henry's are the Republic of Ireland related categories, the chances are slim he attended Rathmore. So in balance without references, yeah it wasn't going to stay. And this isn't to do with WP:AGF, I assumed good faith. However it was an unreferenced edit that based on the balance of probability given the available information seemed unlikely. If this is incorrect, then feel free as mentioned to re-add and include a reference confirming he attended Rathmore and we can also then move his article categories to Northern Ireland and UK related categories rather than Republic of Ireland subset categories. Canterbury Tail talk 20:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdelete request[edit]

This content appears to be copyrighted. Is it okay if you delete this revision? [8] Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hard to revdel just part of a larger edit. Not an expert in that kind of thing, Try checking with Dianaa, she's our expert on that sort of thing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misspoke. I meant to ask if you could delete the revisions before my revision. I already removed the copyvio. I'll ask Diannaa though.Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I see now. Done. All revision except your latest one are hidden. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

I have been blocked indefinitely as a misunderstanding of past copyright violation from October this year.with a copyright violation count of 4,the thing is 3 of the warning were made by a same editor(not admin) who was in dispute with me.I took the warning of the admin deeply and have not violated the rule since then but unfortunately unexpectedly I am blocked recently ,Kindly help me out.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EL[edit]

Isn't it helpful for readers to know that the book by the subject of the article exists? I would think so and urge leaving it in. I'm thinking about this. Thank you. --2604:2000:E010:1100:8813:945C:33AD:2B50 (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, now that I read over the article again I see the book isn't even mentioned. Technically it fails Wp:EL as it contains no information that the article could contain, but it doesn't currently. I'll reinstate for now. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see EL lists all the time of publications by subjects of articles. This is especially the case with academics and doctors, for example. 2604:2000:E010:1100:649D:1AC2:B797:CB1A (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of The L Word CD's" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of The L Word CD's. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#List of The L Word CD's until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cities collapse revert[edit]

I had a think about the revert you performed for the collapsible option, and am of the thinking it is quite useful and would reinstate.
I have stated my reasons on the Cities talk page here so let me know your thoughts there please.
Thanks, regs, The Equalizer (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Yarn Clearer[edit]

You proposed it for deletion, but did not notify the creator. I did it for you, but in the future please do. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hello[edit]

You might find this interesting. And this. Notice who starts every one of those AFDs. I was never here. Mo Billings (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's early, I'm clearly missing something. Though starting an AfD on an actor as prolific as Yuen Biao is weird, as is nominating your own images for deletion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll spell it out for you. OTRS volunteers on Commons are having trouble verifying claims of copyright ownership for a file uploaded by the user you're looking into. It smells bad. At the same time, another user (whose only contribution on Commons is supporting the non-deletion of that photo of Maurice Novoa) has participated here in AFDs that were started by the first user. And no other AFDs. It also smells bad. Add to that a questionable source that is only used here for articles created by that user and it starts to smell worse. Check your nose. Mo Billings (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. Yes I have some severe suspicions around the main user. I’m trying to get some feedback on that odd community newspaper source on the reliable sources notice board. It’s been a busy week so I’m not through everything but there is definitely some bad faith going on at minimum. Socking is possible but not sure I have enough yet to ask a checkuser to be run. Blatant promotion going subtly back years is pretty much a given. COI, definitely and has been admitted as being a student of the person being promoted. Could it actually be that they’re Maurice themselves, maybe. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it I don't think it is socking. A did communicate with B to ask them to help in an AfD. Why they asked them, I've no idea, they had no interactions or even common pages before. Random Australian? Outside of that time, and the one off later, I don't see any overlaps. Canterbury Tail talk 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued reverting in an article, advice sought[edit]

In Ruislip, Female American (talk · contribs), continues to add an referenced edit. I cannot see what to do next, I have added a warning to their user page, and read all the relevent sections I can find I'm reluctant to continue reverting, as it seems like an edit war (although it seems not as I'm removing it as it is unreferenced). Do I continue adding warnings? or is their another route (as it's not technically an edit war). Sciencefish (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them an edit warning and reverted their edit. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021[edit]

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more question about notable people[edit]

Hello once more. I wanted to ask you one more question. If a person doesn't have his article on English Wikipedia, but has on any other (for example, French or German), can he be included as a notable resident or notable performer of the song on English Wiki? --Birdsflyinghigh123 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all Wikipedias are treated completely separately. Different rules, inclusion guidelines etc. So short answer is no. However you can freely translate an article from another wiki, bring across the sources and references etc (as you noted references don't need to be in English) as long as you mention in the edit summary that's what you are doing (for attribution purposes.) I.e. recreate the article over here. Whether or not they meet en.wiki's notability guidelines remains to be seen, en.wiki does have some of the most stringent notability guidelines, but it's always worth a try. However you can bring articles over that's perfectly fine under all the licensing. Canterbury Tail talk 16:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Flyer photo discussion[edit]

Hi Canterbury, please see this edit, where the user you blocked for edit warring has returned to make the same types of edits again, including removing the collapse tags. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo/Blade Runner[edit]

So... As I said, Blade Runner probably made $80/$90 million and BOM said it made $40 million... Assuming I'm not making up that number, that is an issue right ? And no, I don't have a reliable source for the worldwide box office gross of a 1982 movie, because there's no such thing. Basically, there's no reliable source for pre-1990s worldwide grosses, and there never was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.149.128.9 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is pure supposition and original research. We go with what reliable sources tell us as per WP:VERIFIABILITY not refuse them on the grounds that you don't like them. I'm sure there is a source somewhere, it's a matter of finding it. Anyway any discussion around this should go on the talk page of the article where other users can weight in, as per WP:BRD, not on a users talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why...[edit]

...is there no reference to your admin rights on your user page? Tiderolls 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to do so. Why do you think there should be? It's not compulsory, plenty of admins don't do so. Canterbury Tail talk 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Canterbury_Tail/Archive_15&oldid=1211796261"