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

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021 Edit

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


  Administrator changes

  Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
  • A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
  • A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
  • There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

  Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alien Edit

I thought you reversion of my edit on Alien about R/GA has a production company was arrogant and controlling (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ummmm, thanks? It’s not a production company, not listed in the credits as a production company so it doesn’t go in the info box as a production company. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. R/GA were the production company for the title sequence, which is one of the most iconic in the history of film. Or as you suggested, they probably just made the tea and sandwiches (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but they were not the production company for the film, hence why they're not listed here (or anywhere) as the film's production company. Producing the title is no different to the company that does the special effects, they're a sub-contractor not the movie's production company. The only credited production company for the film is Brandywine under Twentieth Century Film Corp. Canterbury Tail talk 16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could have made that edit regarding the typeface, rather than just deleting it. I often come across people on wikipedia that act like they own articles -- which is against the spirit and rules of the platform. It is really sad. Maybe a reflection of the people who spend their time policing other's edits (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well everything in main space should be referenced and verified. That was not a verifiable statement. I wouldn’t put it was probably something as that’s not a very encyclopaedic statement and I don’t think has any room here, it’s purely an opinion not a fact. Additionally the typeface used is pure trivia and not encyclopaedic. And I’m quite aware of the spirit of the platform. How do you expect someone to react when you come onto their user talk page calling them arrogant and controlling? Not exactly the comments of someone editing in good faith and trying to be cooperative. I should also note that you’re the one who keeps returning to my talk page to make non-good faith comments. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always edit in good faith. It is hard when faced with someone who just wants to delete and control other people's edits, and dictate what is added to an article. To someone who is interested in typefaces, that is very encyclopedic for one of the most iconic movie title. If you have good faith, maybe talk before just deleting... because that's what you think (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note at no point have I ever suggested your edits were not made in good faith, and I always gave a reason for my edits. Please review WP:BRD. If you boldly add something, and someone reverts it, then it's incumbent on the person making the addition to take it to the talk page. Note I haven't reverted the current font edit, as it is sourced. Still not convinced it's encyclopaedic though but I'm open to see what others say. However yes I will remove unsourced information, and information and claims that are not supported by the source. And as for dictating what is in an article, that's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do, I do not own articles, no body does. Your initial edit that this whole section is talking about to add R/GA as the production company was clearly incorrect as they were not the production company for the film, despite having produced the title sequence, and it's quite acceptable to remove such an edit. Also be completely aware that once you make an edit, you lose control of the edit and any other user can come along and edit what you have just entered with good reason. I have given my reasons on multiple occasions. To edit Wikipedia you have to be comfortable with your edits being scrutinised by other editors, and potentially changed and reverted after you make them. Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. It is great to talk to an experienced editor that is always right. Have you ever considered why you have had so many people react poorly to your reversions and associated comments against the edits. Maybe you could consider viewing edits and adding qualifying sources, or flagging the edit as unsourced, and dropping a note on the editor's talk page. Only a suggestion (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt that it will change your mind but I would have removed that trivia too, if I had seen it first. As would any experienced editor: it is you who is out of line with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism visibility Edit

Hi Canterbury, sorry to bother you but you're the only admin I could think of off the top of my head. Could you possibly do anything about the visibility of the two Personal Attack edits at RoboCop by the IP ending 184 that have been made today? THanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try that. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what did i do Edit

what did i do — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 (talkcontribs) 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously? You think this is an acceptable encyclopaedic edit? Canterbury Tail talk 23:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me Dear Canterbury Tail
the Mongol Invasions of Japan Was A Real Thing, that happened
i have exact proof that this is true
Mongol invasions of Japan
this is a real event that happened in a countries history and added 200 + points to your article, because it wasnt vandalism, it was a mistake that you thought it was.
i mean i used to do vandalism at first but i have then realized that if i can make sufficient edits into wikipedia, then i will become known as a very popular wikipedia article editor, just like how people have edited
many pages, i have studied history and geography, and in most Articles of countries, i have seen that very important parts of history have been left out, like the empire of japan, tokugawa shogunate and the kamakura shogunate.
if you made this as a mistake or deliberately removed it just because i once was a vandalist, you have nothing or more to care about. Dogemama73 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well then Canturbury Tail
Explain why you dont have the tokugawa, kamukura, Empire of Japan, Even in the Serbian Wiki, it shows ottoman invasions of serbia, your score point is -122 canterbury.
My recent argument even has way more score, and if you continue to do this, by undoing Very Important parts of history, you also remove more detail and score. Dogemama73 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright you do have some vaild reason, but most are usually invalid.
check Serbia and look at what you can see.
You dont even care how much time it takes to write with confidence, and curiosity.
Its not my fault that there is established put in invasions,does it look like i have control over that?
No,because even if i add a parameter, It still is not valid, because you have add a part of certain code, that makes it valid. and i have learnt Wikipedia's Basic Laws, Where it is simple.
You cant Vandalise wikipedia, you cant use tor to unblock yourself or else you get IP banned from Wikipedia or if you do vandalising again after a decade of being unblocked.
And yet you Have accused me of Vandalism, which you have brought your contribution score, by a lot. Dogemama73 (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont Accept that in Article Page Writing outside of the Infobox, but explain in Serbia's wikipedia Article,
i have seen wikipedia for years, and now i have just signed up some months ago, i looked deep to such things as articles like [{Sultan_Jan}], you definitley need to improve your common sense used in wikipedia. Dogemama73 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I kindly know in which way it was lik 'people magazine' type edit that you reverted today. I request you to visit the public Image section on Kate Winslet's wikipage. Fitzwilliams (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again me. I respect your duty and support. But do consider the editings require much work. Who would better known than you? Anyway, I will republish the section if you have seen such things on Kate Winslet's wikipage as I requested. If you find that wrong to, then revert those too. Fitzwilliams (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, please take it to the talk page of the article as per WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, now it's time to discuss and the place to discuss the content is on the article's talk page. Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't generally considered a good reason to include something. Canterbury Tail talk 10:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you know I am only 17 days old on Wikipedia so I learnt just know ho to operate the talk page. I have opened a new topic 'the public Image section' there on the talk page of the article. Please come here and discuss with me. Don't mind me. Fitzwilliams (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry if I come across as aggressive, it's not intentional. Just tired. And yes we can discuss on the appropriate talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are very aggressive, little man. :( I just want to get along........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A donation cannot be considered as a gossip. I guess you didn't like the money factor I mentioned. If I can upload the reverted one now without mentioning that factor, please tell me. Fitzwilliams (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And can I suggest you one thing, editors like you should be welcoming and helpful towards other editors. A few days earlier, you created objection about the public Image section and I haven't forgotten that. Today I see hundreds of wikipages being displayed with such things. Don't mind but your thought seem to be marginalized into your own self, you don't want to consider what other editors write on other wikipages and what other editors want to write on this page. I want to make the heartiest request to you that anyone has made before to you. I will republish the information but not the money factor and you will wait for five or six hours and see if any other editor with such responsibility as you display here, revert it or not. If I get reverted again by anyone except you, I will understand I have problems with myself. If not than I hope you will understand that you have issues with your choice of notability and information. Have a good day. Fitzwilliams (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please ensure any information that is added is encyclopaedic. Also please note that as per WP:BRD if you make and edit, and it is removed, then it is up to the original editor to take it to the talk page and get consensus to add such information. You re-adding it is considered edit warring. And as for asking me not to remove unencyclopaedic information, I'm afraid as a long term editor on this project I cannot do that, if I believe that content is against the objectives and guidelines of this project I cannot let it stay. I will state again that we are an encyclopaedia, not a gossip or people lifestyle magazine and that trivial items are not ones for inclusion. I would also like to point out that you should not personalise edits as you have done so above. A core rule is to comment on content and not the editor, otherwise it could be construed as a personal attack. Canterbury Tail talk 01:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Canterbury tail, thank you. I will mind the copy right policy further. Fitzwilliams (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't intentional, I know, and sometimes Wikipedia's policies can be odd to newcomers. But we do take copyright very seriously, we have to. I'm sure you can find another source for that, I didn't remove the content just the link. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Canterbury tail, I came for a suggestion. I found it logical to seek your advice before taking this to the respective talk page. I literally found nothing about his song. But I did find that it was written by Ali Thomson and sung by Jamie Dornan. But these information weren't found anywhere under Copyright law or permission. Even some websites showing relative news don't show anything when you enter into them. All I found is a YouTube video which states it doesn't own the song. So what should I do? Your advice will be precious. Fitzwilliams (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, if you can't find any information about a song then that would mean it's not notable for mention to be honest. Not everything someone does is encyclopaedically notable. A famout singer writes a song for their daughters birthday but it isn't widely published, not likely notable. A famous author can write something minor and put it on their website, doesn't make it notable. It's only notable if independent third parties are talking about it and discussing it, otherwise it just is and doesn't necessarily merit inclusion. That being said, it may be better to raise this on the article talk page, that will get more eyes on it than just my talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. I opening a topic there right away. Fitzwilliams (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

who are you? Edit

Who are you? Are you an Admin? A criminal? A virgin? A whore? Let me get to know you. Why are you harassing me?

I'm not harassing you, you're editing a page on my watchlist with not very good edits and the other edit was violating some of our Manual of Style guidelines. And yes, I happen to be an admin as well. And your above comment could be considered a personal attack with some of those comments, so I'd suggest editing it. Also please read Competence is Required. Quite frankly at this point your edits are mostly of very poor quality and outright disruptive. Honestly, at this point you're on a fast track to being blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the "very poor quality": I would consider it a euphemism. Some of the edits by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 are unambiguous trolling. When you look at the edit history, I think it's very likely that the user is a sock puppet of a former wikipedian who is possibly blocked from editing—some of the user's first edits were troll messages on my talk page (sending me a retarded cat etc.), without any apparent reason, so the user probably holds a grudge from the past.—J. M. (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was being polite. :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Past being polite. Now they’re blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 00:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, unsurprisingly, the user is back as Leela Roha, sending me a kitten again, and asking the same question about following users' edits (i.e. wikihounding) that they asked on my talk page. Obviously, I think Leela Roha should be blocked for sock puppetry, and perhaps an SPI page should be opened…—J. M. (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started an SPI. I hope someone will reply this time, and it won't take weeks or months (SPI has been severely understaffed in recent months).—J. M. (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never worry, I just blocked them as a blatant sock. I've tagged the pages as appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosetta Stone - Archeological Theft Edit

Could you tell me why according to you it is not appropriate category?--Nous (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That category is all about looting. I'm not disputing that ownership of the Rosetta Stone is controversial, but something looted is quite different to something found on an archaeological dig. Turning the question around. Why, according to you, is it an appropriate category? And I would also direct you to WP:BRD, and suggest that any discussion of the category happen on the article's talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not sure what you suggest. French had permission from Ottoman sultan to do archeological work and to take what they find? I know nothing about it, and seriously, they were at war with Ottoman Empire, so forgive me, but I really doubt it. They conquer and occupied alien country, do illegal digging, and remove artifacts. It is called looting. The Nazis in occupied Greece did the same thing sometimes, and everybody call it looting (and they did it not only in Greece) P.S. Forgive me that I don't wrote it on the article's talk page, but, by the way, you should answer on my talk page. Or bring it all to talk page of the article, if you want to be consequential. Whatever - we are where we are.--Nous (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will only respond to talk comments here, as noted at the top of the page. However this is about content, not about me, so any conversation on categories or article content should take place on the talk page of the appropriate article. Canterbury Tail talk 10:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021 Edit

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


  Administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

  Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! Edit

  The Recent Changes Barnstar
Thanks for welcoming me in November :) If it had come without a welcome I would have probably continued disruptively editing. Noah 💬 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On nationalities Edit

First of all, thanks a bunch for your help in reverting nonsense across the encyclopedia, it's a big help. I noticed you reversion of an edit to Abroad in Japan where the subject's nationality was changed from British to English. The reversion was correct {Broad is a self-described "British Guy making videos in Japan"), though I fear the reasoning for reversion was a bit off. When I added Broad's nationality , I was careful to read up on Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom beforehand (as an American who prefers to tread lightly with the national identities of the UK). What settled it for me was the section Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide to finding UK nationality. Broad describes himself as British, so that's that, but shouldn't there be instances where it would be correct to say one's nationality is English? Cheers, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 22:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes you are correct in that. It all comes down to what we mean by nationality, citizenship, identity etc. And I spend most of my time moderating stuff around Northern Ireland (if you think England is a mess, try that one. British, Irish, Northern Irish, none, all.) Honestly if I had my way we'd get rid of nationalities altogether (they're more trouble than they're worth) and just say where someone is from. Canterbury Tail talk 23:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like quite the task. How we all self-identify is such a delightfully complex matter. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 00:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And sometimes even has no real basis in anything other than desire. But hey, we're all human and all looking to belong to something. Have a good one. Canterbury Tail talk 00:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh just noticed you live in Aomori. Nice, not been up that way. Looking to get back to Japan for a month or so again once all this is over. Thinking of heading up to Tohoku. Canterbury Tail talk 00:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, but I'm heading back to the US for good sometime within the next few months. Aomori will always be a home of sorts to me though! If you make it and are looking for recommendations, feel free to send me an email. What there is to do around here is really dictated by what season it is, (autumn is best) but there is always something interesting going on. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 01:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nationality has been a question of legal debate with foreign national and the U.S. Courts. Do the search bots with content of the wiki pages involve the legal use of phrases? Abroad in Japan 2601:543:4380:EA00:85B4:E1D9:19C6:1452 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I Notice Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sudipto Surjo's block expires and they immediate resume their disruptive conduct. Thank you. DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 02:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh? Edit

Did you get caught in an edit conflict with this revert? —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah sorry about that. I think my iPad Chrome refreshed when I was clicking a link and it ended up being the wrong one. That was so not intended, not even on that page. A complete refresh and misclick on my behalf. Sincere apologies. I was trying to click on a diff for another watchlist item and recall wondering why it was not on that page. Recovering from vaccine fever and just got confused and didn’t realize what I’d done. Canterbury Tail talk 00:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If WMF had a dollar for every time my screen had jumped and I clicked the wrong thing, there'd never be another banner ad for donations. :) I usually catch it, but I'm sure I'm not 100% at it. No worries. Glad you're on the mend from the vaccine; I got my second dose today, so we'll see how I am over the next few days. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers. Yeah, with a mouse it's bad enough, on the iPad it can be infuriating. I got an AstraZeneca, just a light fever and a bit of light headedness not too bad. Much better today. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MMMC Architects Edit

Thanks for taking a hatchet to MMMC Architects. I tagged it with a PROD, but does it meet G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) for a speedy delete? Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's dubious, on the fence about that. It's clearly a non-notable architectural firm blatantly written by an employee or close contact. Speedy, meh undecided. You could always tag it and someone can come along and make the judgement call on it. Problem with the prod is it takes 5 days and anyone can remove it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of forests in Ireland Edit

You will note that User Ddep96 (created on 1 May 2021 at 12:56) has made three edits to Wikipedia since the account was created the day before yesterday. Each has been to change 'County Londonderry' to 'County Derry' on the above page. I simply reverted the first one with a reference to 'WP:Londonderry" in the edit summary. The second time that it happened, I put links to the Wikipedia policy on the article's talk page and the user's talk page. I have just reverted the third edit with a link to the talk page.This may be a case of a new editor who simply reverts edits with which they do not agree, perhaps is not familiar with Wikipedia talk pages, or is not interested in discussing the issue/is not prepared to discuss it. I am keen to avoid falling foul of the three-revert rule. Would this page be a candidate for semi-protection? Alekksandr (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dealt with. Someone who persists in the same edits continuously and ignores talk page comments, isn't here to contribute meaningfully. I've also added the article to my watchlist. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. Alekksandr (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Canterbury Tail. Excellent work you are doing, just as an add on to this in The Republic of Ireland counties are used as
actual areas, So County Cork is run by Cork County council. Whereas in Northern Ireland they do not use the counties, but have divided the areas into boroughs, as can be seen in this article.
Local government in Northern Ireland
Thor909Thor909 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC) (talk)Thor909 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Counties are still in use in Northern Ireland. They are not government organisations any more, however they're still geographic areas. Towns, cities etc are still in counties for locational and address purposes (not governmental) for instance and they are still locational descriptors. Canterbury Tail talk 19:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Canterebury Tail, Yes correct, I was just pointing out the Governmental differences.~~~~ Thor909 (talk)Thor909 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nuclear Milkman Edit

Blocked a sock of his, User talk:Samuel Collingsworth - I forget how to not ping someone and can't find anything to help me. Anyway, see their unblock request. Definitely Mikemikev. I don't see an SPI but there probably should be one now, what do you think? And should Collingsworth have tpa removed? Doug Weller talk 12:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think others are more familiar with the case overall and the various socks/masters etc involved. Not familiar with Mikemikev. If you're certain you're certain, and it is definitely a loud quacker for someone else. At the end of the day it won't be contested no matter how they're blocked, access removed etc as they're clearly someone who's effectively banned by this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See [[1]] and another I found, [2]. I'll tidy it all up with the existing SPI. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. I don't get it, what do people get out of this stuff? My time is finite, banging my head against a wall repeatedly for zero gain isn't what I want to spend it doing. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021 Edit

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


  Administrator changes


  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:FreadyBulat Edit

Would you block please? persistent disruptive vandalism despite warnings. TYVM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have been shown the door. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3080 Ti Edit

Hey, I think they finally announced the 3070/3080 Ti. —Locke Coletc 13:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but we still need to do something about that IP. Looking at various articles, they've been hurling abuse and throwing unsourced conjecture at things for many many years. I'm going to seek assistance of other admins that have experience in range blocking etc on this. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, and I caught on to the IPs all being from the same country/region as well, so hopefully there's a solution. Though your protection solution appears to have resolved the matter for now (even if it means the occasional talk page abuse). —Locke Coletc 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah but semi-protecting pages due to one person isn't a fabulous solution. However looking at some articles such as Nvidia PureVideo this person has been at this for a decade or so. So it needs a solution. I just don't know what it is and blocking all unregistered users from editing anything to do with computer hardware isn't the right solution. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:PBLOCK appears to indicate you can apply them to IP ranges, up to ten pages at a time. These appear to be all the IPs from the abusive editor's ISP. As you said, might be best to consult someone with experience, but indef PBLOCKs on those ranges would be what I'd try. —Locke Coletc 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Curious, how'd you come up with that list? Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you go to the contributions for an IP, there is a WHOIS link near the bottom left of the page (with a bunch of other useful-ish links) (example: [3]). On that page there is an "asn" field, 4788, which is a link that generates all the IPs from that same ASN. I checked it against some of the other recent IPs and they all use the same ASN. I'd check against the really old ones to make sure you don't miss any, but I suspect they're likely all the same. As a sanity check you can use a CIDR calculator (like this one [4]) and if you try a range like (which is from that generated list) it should show that it applies to CIDR IP Range - - (which would include (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), one of the IPs that was disruptive). —Locke Coletc 16:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I spend too much time gnoming and dealing with little fires and not enough learning. Much appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, let's be friends. Here Warhammer is referred as space opera. Really. I don't want to enter in bad discussion, offend you or get into lengthy discussions. I know my place. Really. Let's be friends. I know things must be sourced. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk) EDIT: Also, here by Random House. Referred fully as space opera. Fully. I want to be friends. EDIT: This personal space opera website also refers Warhammer 40,000 novels as derived literature of the space opera genre. Also, I noticed you removed the side-bar on Space Western. Let's put at least some written examples? Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

Happy First Edit Day! Edit

Happy Adminship Anniversary! Edit

KSI Flag dispute Edit

Hello, I just wanted to communicate to you that flags are meant to be used for Pro boxing records. You can check references such as other boxers such as Tyson Fury or Dillian Whyte. The flags are used to show the nationality of the fighter and the location. Sebzsoccer (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calling it a professional boxing match is a joke, it was a publicity stunt. However there are indeed enough references to call it a pro match despite what everyone thinks so... Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is was a pro fight despite the lack of skill between the fighters. I understand where your coming from and I’m glad the issue is resolved. Sebzsoccer (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Safehold Edit

OK, I'm sorry. Really. I thought it was, considering Honorverse is. Sorry. I'll try not to happen again. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish both genres: military and space opera. Considering that sometimes fiction happens in space. I'll try to be better. Just show me civilized the way. I know I'm long term editor. Almost 20 years. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

Note Honorverse isn't listed as space opera, there is nothing in that article to support it either. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9 Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paper model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021 Edit

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


  Administrator changes

  AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
  HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Expanse Edit

You reverted my small edit to improve the time context of the plot synopsis on The Expanse. You asserted dates were never clear. That is incorrect. I viewed Eps. 1-3 (season 1) of the series today, and the23rd century bit was actually written on-screen, in one of those episodes. I believe it was Ep.1, near the beginning of the episode.

I don't care about it that much, so am not pushing it beyond this comment setting you straight. But your assertion is not correct; and the synopsis would be better with my edit left in it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it needs a reference, we don't have one. If one can be provided then obviously that's fair enough, but even the fan Wiki's don't have dates for it which is unusual. Canterbury Tail talk 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting that you say it needs a source. Nothing else is sourced in those sections. I'm part of some better citing wikiprojects, and at one time worked to advance the idea that plot summaries in WP article on books, or films, or TV shows needed source citations. This was roundly rejected; and as you can see from looking at any plot summary of those types of media, they are all nearly completely lacking citations for the many many statements made in those summaries in an article.
It's kinda weird, relative to the rest of the encyclopedia. But that is what has emerged as an outcome, in actual practice. People just don't cite that stuff; and other editors seem to accept it. Unless they don't, as happened today. But since nothing is cited at all, your assertion that a return to the existing wording is no stronger argument than mine that it should be changed for clarity.
So I doubt I'll ever pass the way again so as to see that white text, on the screen, in The Advance episode, that made the 23rd centruy explicit. Alas, like much of Wikipedia, it'll just have to be something that awaits some other editor to fix it; or one who happens to fix it when no watcher is watching who, although the watcher doesn't know better, the watcher (you, in the extant case) is willing to revert to maintain the status quo on a totally uncited plot summary/season summary: Status / Season 2 / Season 2 / etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it does need a reference, because it's not known. You say one episode makes it clear that it's the 23d century (incidentally there isn't an episode called "The Advance"). Can you tell me when this date appears in the show and what episode? I then raise you Ganymede Gin, very clearly shown in the shown and carries the caption "since 2307" thus meaning it's minimum of 24th century. (see this screen grab for evidence) So unless you can provide evidence otherwise, preferably a reliable source, you cannot claim it's the 23rd century. And as you know, uncited claims can be challenged and removed, you added a claim that wasn't supported by anything so it was challenged and removed. The closest we actually have is claiming its set in 2350 (which is 24th century), but it could be up for debate on whether that is a reliable source or just something the writer made up at that point for the article. The books are mum on the topic, and the role-playing game states 2351, but that's based on the books not the TV series. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

  Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyvio notice on my talk page Edit

Please explain, given that we are currently in the midst of the discussion on WP:External links/Noticeboard § hosting of copyrighted material, why you have posted this copyvio to my talk page. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you had re-added, in the past, the offending link to Liar Paradox and it needed to be removed. Please don't add it again. As you're aware Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, and while there's any doubt the links should not be used. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally I notice you are no longer participating in the EL/N thread, and it appears to have reached it's clear conclusion, so obviously the copyrighted links needed to be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 18:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Isles Edit

I'm not sure of the best course of action over there. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: I reverted the the fellow, on the basis of WP:BRD. It's best he get a consensus there, for what he wants. Either that, or a block for edit warring. It's up to him. GoodDay (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts Edit

Hi Canterbury. You have removed some of the nice new temperature bar charts from some articles. You wrote that they are lacking a scale. However, the scale is available via Commons. Just click on the bar chart. You might have overlooked that information? Maybe you want to add the figures again yourself? DiagramLover (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no vertical scale on those graphs. The vertical scale could be 0.1 degree a pixel, 1 degree, or 10 degrees. As they are they're just abstract to the readers. The graph should convey the information, not require the reader to go off and read something else and figure out what is going on. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing your concerns. The image page is pretty clear though: "This bar chart is a visual representation of the change in temperature in the past 100+ years. Each stripe represents the temperature averaged over a year. The average temperature in 1971–2000 is set as the boundary between blue and red colors, and the color scale varies from ±2.6 standard deviations of the annual average temperatures between the years mentioned in the file name. Data source: Berkeley Earth. For more information visit". It becomes clear from this description what these bars represent. I hope this makes sense now? Cheers DiagramLover (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conversation to happen on your talk page where it was started for reference for everyone else. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject for Warhammer? Edit

Greerings, CT. I'm messaging you because I noticed you editing Age of Sigmar. Do you know of any sort of Wikiproject for Warhammer or related wargagming? If not, do you know more active users interested in Warhammer who I could contact? I noticed that articles related to the game often read like advertisements and have poor sourcing, yet there's a ton of RS available in media coverage on the game. A lot of improvements could be done, but it will take a lot of work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

  Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you following me? Edit

Why have all my recent edits you have changed something on the same page I have? Are you getting notifications when I contribute something? Honestly I am curious, I am new to the wiki scene.

You're the one who undid my edit so yes I looked at your edit. Singular. You only made 2 edits before posting this message. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don’t worry he does that he is following me too trying to get pages I made deleted Australianblackbelt (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Australianblackbelt (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adam B Edit

Perhaps a page block from that article for (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be a good idea please? FDW777 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that is a good idea. I had considered locking down the entire article to new users, and that may still happen, but hadn't realised this single IP had done so much. Consider it done. Canterbury Tail talk 11:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm Edit

This sort of thing. There's quite a lot of it alongside many good edits. I see you on the editor's Talk page too. I do feel somewhat concerned but I'm unclear whether action is appropriate ... I'm not really up for tackling it myself. I might go on watching for a while too and see how things develop. Thanks for your vigilance. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah it's tricky. They're editing in good faith, and some of their edits are good. However I'm not entirely convinced English is their first language and at times their grasp on grammar is poor. Some edits have been really bad, but they're not the majority. Like you I'm unsure as to the ultimate action to take here. Does the work they are causing others to clean up outweigh the work they're doing? I don't think so, and they do correct more than they cause so technically it's a net positive. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Edit

Hello CanterburyTail, just thought the following may be of use to you:

Thank you. Yes I'm aware of ABB's edits over time, his shameless promotion and continuous COI and need to promote non-notable persons. And the Latin Australian Times is not a notable news source, it's a local community newspaper that publishes anything that comes across its desk, not an editorial oversighted news source. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very glad you've been following his dubious career; I'm afraid as a humble IP contributor I lack any real means of positively influencing the situation, but it's indisputably to Wikipedia's detriment to allow this person to succeed in his vanity editing, which bewilderingly seems to have gone under the radar for several years. Many thanks for your hard work!
Just because you're an IP, doesn't mean you can't interact and participate. For instance there is an AfD for Felix Leong currently underway, you're more than welcome to participate there should you desire. AfDs are done on strength of argument and policy, not votes, so your voice is as valid as anyone elses. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I added my two cents in what I hope is a productive way; I considered mentioning the fact that the personal profiles ( of Maurice Novoa, Anthony Arnett, Felix Leong and his student Nick Legg (featured at one point in several of ABB's photos demonstrating with Felix Leong, with meticulous specific mention in photo captions)- perhaps tellingly, the only one NOT to receive his own article here, which would allow defence against accusation of vanity editing?- all indicate their association, but that's rather over-egging the pudding, at least at this point. Taking Maurice Novoa as an example- : his teacher is shown to be Anthony Arnett (article created by ABB), whose teacher, William Cheung, was also focus of much editing attention from ABB; Felix Leong is listed as another teacher. On Felix Leong's profile is listed Nick Legg, whose profile states him to be "one of Grandmaster Felix Leong's oldest and most senior disciples" (ABB has claimed himself to be a "pentioner" when challenged...) who "currently teaches Sifu Maurice once a week the many lineages taught to im (sic) by Grandmaster Felix." Perhaps not viable "evidence" by Wikipedia standards; at the very least a bit of interesting background, I thought. EDIT: Sorry, forgot one thing- when, in September 2020, on the Felix Leong article talk page, he was challenged with being "probably either Nick Legg or Maurice Novoa", the usually voluble and argumentative ABB said nothing further. When however his Maurice Novoa article was put up for deletion and a conflict of interest put to him, he forcefully denied being Maurice Novoa.

The location of Slaghtaverty Edit

I believe my edit shouldn’t of been changed as it remained accurate while avoiding political bias in a very tense political situation whereas your ‘correction’ does not. I changed the description of Slaghtaverty from being near Maghera in Londonderry to being near Maghera in Ulster, this is still an accurate and correct description. I will admit it is slightly less precise but only slightly and the reader should have no trouble finding the location based on my description, the reason I replaced ‘Londonderry’ with Ulster is that all communities across the island of Ireland agree on Ulster as the location, whereas the Name of Derry/Londonderry is both colloquially and legally recognised differently depending on your political and ethnic background or which state of Ireland you’re in (Northern or Republic), Londonderry is equally as correct as Derry yet moderators seem to insist that Londonderry has preference over Derry, wars where fought over issues like this and violence continues to this day, I feel it’s only respectable to avoid the county when describing the location of Slaghtaverty and it would be pedantic to insist on being so specific especially since it’s close proximity to Maghera was already mentioned Michael Murfie (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context this was regarding the Abhartach page Michael Murfie (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So why not the country it's in then, Northern Ireland. Ulster isn't used for anything anymore. And County Londonderry isn't politically sensitive, it's the name of the county and has been ever since it was created. Some people colloquially call it County Derry, but that's never been its name since it was previously County Coleraine. You're the only one making some political issue out of it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question re: COI and new articles Edit

Hi! I stumbled across one of the articles that you nominated for deletion. I agree that the article should be deleted, but your explanation brought up a question for me. Is a history of COI a reason to delete an article? I have been only looking at the article itself and not the editor who created it, but you and the other voter both brought up COI. I want to make sure that I am properly evaluating articles, so I thought I would ask. I really appreciate your help in making me a better editor! FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not entirely no. It could be considered a factor, but it’s definitely not a single reason to do so in all honesty. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP: Edit

Hello, could I please alert you to the fact that (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still edit warring on American Airlines, although you have blocked them for 24 hours. Perhaps a longer block is required? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those edits are from 20 minutes before they were blocked. They are currently blocked and cannot edit. Feel free to let me know if they continue once their block expires. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They've continued after the block expired: see here, among others. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked again. 1 week this time. Canterbury Tail talk 01:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Null perspiration. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're back! BilCat (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their edits don't appear to have been disruptive since their return. However perhaps trying to engage them on their talk page pre-emptively one last time may be beneficial? Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021 Edit

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


  Administrator changes

  Jake Wartenberg
  EmperorViridian Bovary
  AshleyyoursmileViridian Bovary

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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



Sorry I put my comments/request up top.Palisades1 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hunger strike Edit

Hi - the reason given for your revert on the 1981 Irish hunger strike page (2 Sept 2021) "Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike" on the page - was "already in more appropriate and specific subcategory". I assume you mean that you feel that the existing category "Hunger strikes" was more user friendly than the category "Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike".

Looking at the category Hunger strikes - in order to get to the listing of all of the Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike (20th century) a reader will need to access another page "List of hunger strikes" and then will find an incomplete listing of Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike.

The most appropriate and specific subcategory for a full listing of 20th century Irish hunger Striker deaths is the one that was reverted: Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike.

I think our goal is to provide readers simple access to the information.

Please reconsider your revert. Thanks for your consideration.

Palisades1 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I reverted them because they're already in a more specific and appropriate category, namely "Category:People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike". This is a subcategory of "Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike" and is more more precise. That 1981 strike is the hunger strike they died in. We shouldn't be general when we can be specific, the lower a category we can place an article in the better and the 1981 hunger strike category was already there and is a subcategory of "Category:Irish prisoners who died on hunger strike". If you go to that category you will see the 1981 strike inside of it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returning disruptive editor Edit

Could you please have a word with this IP (who is obviously the same editor that you blocked previously for disruptive editing)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did I do that was disruptive? 2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:C48:500D:EFA4:745E (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see their previous disruptions and blindingly obvious POV pushing (previous ANI report). Thanks M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Blindingly obvious POV pushing" lmao ok. Why don't you answer the question? Speak out the "POV pushing" you think I'm doing, if you are man enough to do so. 2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:C48:500D:EFA4:745E (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reform Party of Canada ‎ Edit

If you got time and are interested ... Talk:Reform Party of Canada#‎political position.--Moxy-  21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


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


  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starship Troopers Article Edit

Hi, the discussion has gotten long and slightly difficult to follow because of the number of participants, but I have replied to you on the Starship Troopers Talk page. Basically, I refer to the references provided by Schazjmd. Koikefan (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TommySocialist again Edit

Since they admit to being a sockpuppet, could you block their current IP please? FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone already got to it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was just coming to say that! FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the block has now expired and they are still using (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). FDW777 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the monkey presses the button. Down for a month for now. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question, if me putting a flag on the united states part of the Las Vegas page makes it “distracting and too small to be of any use” Then why are they on the New York City and Los Angeles pages HMMM? I feel like the fact that they are on those pages means it’s fine to put them on the Las Vegas page. DrkWebber (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felix Leong Edit

Check your facts the news reports on Leong are certainly not local we have no local news TV channels in Australia they are channels 10, 9, SBS, 7, ABC Leong has been on prime time 3 times which is more than any other Australian martial artist this decade, As for the LATIN AUSTRALIAN TIMES that was a NATIONAL NEWSPAPER delivered to all state in the country. You have little idea about what is local or national in Australia as for the articles I've created I have made over a dozen, Leong is not my LAST article that remains . Your vendetta against me is childish and Leong will be restored as he will be featured in national news sources again next month on his birthday. get a life mate Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no vendetta against you, you just keep creating articles on non-notable people and promoting people you have connection with in violation of WP:COI. And your claim that he will be featured in national news sources again next month just goes to show that you have a COI. Felix Leong's article was deleted after regular process at Articles for Deletion as can be seen here, I did not delete it, it was the consensus of the community that he is not notable. And please be civil to other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] this newspaper was supported by all 13 consulates and embassies of Spanish speaking countries in Australia and was delivered to all states, look at the journalists they are award winners yet you say its a local news letter with no journalistic oversite why spread such nonsense Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact you had all LAT sources deleted without proper discussion Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a point to make or are you just going to continue coming to my talk page to rant that all the articles you are creating about people you know are being deleted by the community for being non-notable? I have never deleted an article of yours, they were all deleted by the community at large due to their non-notability. Additionally your COI in all of those articles was also very telling. Despite the fact you've been warned about COI on many occasions you still have not declared your conflicts on your user page and the articles as you're required to. If you continue your pattern of creating articles about non-notable persons, and persons you have a conflict of interest with, the likely course of action will be that you will end up blocked from the project. Oh and references to the LAT were deleted as unreliable due to it being, well, unreliable and all the stories that were being used as references were purely local community fluff pieces not reliable journalism. The LAT may have some items that are reliable, but those fluff pieces are not. This has come up in many article deletion discussions as well and the reliable sources noticeboard. Canterbury Tail talk 19:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody answered you call on the notice board about LAT what are you on about Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you recreate the Felix Leong article with no better-quality sources than before, with the addition of a similarly poor-quality source or sources mentioning his birthday, no doubt the article will be deleted once again on grounds of insufficient notability (leaving quite aside the by now well-established COI factor), as all that will have been established is that a non-notable local community martial arts teacher of no particular distinction was born on a particular day. Given that your crusade thus far has, unfortunately for you, drawn considerable attention, you would be advised simply to bow out at this point and not persist in acting against the principles of Wikipedia as you have been doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HELP! Edit

  Hello, I'm Binaza. Can you please help me review what's going on, on this page? The second paragraph is wrongly cited as the references used, doesn't show verifiability.  Binaza!  (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking about nominating this page for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liz Read! Talk!, I am thinking the exact same thing. Especially since this Binaza is probably the same person as Ugochukwu75 (talk). Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop accusing people of being socks and of being paid editors without providing any evidence. Such bad faith isn’t tolerated. If you have evidence please present it, or stop making the accusations. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I googled the reporting process and went ahead and did it. All the evidence is in the report I filed. I'm also pretty fed up so far with people telling me this and that without offering any help even when it's obvious that what I'm saying is true, but I guess maybe that's how it works here - you have to google everything because of the byzantine layers of bureaucracy. That's probably on purpose, I suppose, to discourage people who aren't savvy enough to figure it out on their own. That doesn't make it any less frustrating. Thanks a lot. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the information and links to reporting sock puppetry can be found at WP:SOCK and reports of paid editing can take place at WP:ANI. None of this is hidden and most can be found simply from reading through the policies. Canterbury Tail talk 01:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading policy pages and filing a SPI report is preferable to "Googling" information. If you ever have questions about how Wikipedia policy works or what to do, there is always the Teahouse where you can bring your questions. It can help you find your way through the bureaucracy. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I still had to google "SPI" - believe it or not, that seems to get me to the right Wikipedia page quicker than typing that into the Wikipedia search bar. If I did stuff in the wrong order, I apologize for that, but Binaza was eventually confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75, as I suspected. Now another sock is attempting the same paid editing nonsense - it's User:Film Fanatical10069, who had not made an edit in 4 years and magically started editing the same article that Ugochukwu75 and Binaza were involved in. Right after Ugochukwu75's appeal to be unblocked was denied, of course. I filed a new report. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Canterbury Tail, @Liz, @Fred Zepelin. Thank you in advance for your patience with me. I received an email after 4 years, about a page delete for Wheels (2014 film), so I logged in and found Fred was trying to remove the page for lack of references. I found some good references and uploaded them and actually am interested in giving this another try. I got pretty discouraged last time as it was tough for me to figure out due to medical issues. I actually just found the visual editor, so that makes life lots easier. But what I don't understand is why @Fred Zepelin is harassing me and taking down my references. I appreciate his passion, but I do not appreciate his lack of professionalism. I was trying to thank him for his cleanup of the page and he said something about my sister on my talk page. My account is 6 years old and I would love to get back into creating and building articles. Can you please offer me any advice regarding this? Also finding a mentor. Thank you in advance for your help. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You added more than one of the exact same promotional/PR firm "references" that you tried to add under the Ugochukwu75 account. You also had edited Donavon Warren in the past, (everyone take a look at this edit, where he deleted the notice about Donavon Warren) but when that deletion happened recently, your Ugochukwu75 account wasn't blocked yet, so you didn't have a need to use this one. Are we supposed to believe that you didn't receive an email when Donavon Warren was being deleted, or that you ignored that one, and you only decided to awaken after the Wheels article was considered for deletion? And it's coincidence that the Ugochukwu75 was blocked in between those two instances? Why'd you delete the paragraph about Donavon Warren on your talk page just now? Come on. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IndieWire, AFI, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider are not promotional websites. You also deleted other references which were noted in the keep page as being notable. Please see Talk:Wheels (2014 film). I didn't receive an email because I did not create that page. To be honest, I really don't want to get into whatever it is you are doing here. You obviously have some sort of motivation to get the page taken down as you keep vandalizing it, taking down sources and have put time into this. I am just here to create and edit and not get involved with whatever it is you are doing. So please stop harassing me. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting claim where you said "I didn't receive an email because I did not create that page" in reference to the Donavon Warren article. I'd like you to take a look at this page here.
I have two questions:
1 - If you didn't create the article, why does Onel5969 say "I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Donavon Warren, for deletion"?
2 - Why did you suddenly, less than an hour after you started editing for the first time in 4 years, delete that one piece of information tying you to the Warren article from your talk page? Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take your sniping and warring someplace else, like ANI. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you! Edit

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

User engaging in Edit warring Edit

Hi, you had blocked User talk:ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ for 24 hours for Edit warring recently for a period of 24 hours. However, the user is back to edit warring and making disruptive edits at 2017 elections in India as soon as the block period was over.

The user has been making the same incorrect edit again and again - (1), (2) and (3). The user has also disrupted the table under section 'State legislatures' here. The map has been specifically made for the page 2022 elections in India and the user is deliberately adding it to the wrong page. The user does not respond to warnings on the talk page as well. Would you please check this out? Thanks.Dhruv edits (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bond Behind the Iron Curtain Edit

Hello, I added a one sentence citation to a new book I read that consists of articles and essays about the James Bond books translated now from what were Iron Curtain countries. This was immediately deleted as "not notable" by a user w/o a user page and then, after I reverted, another user who clearly had not read the book deleted it. I have read the book, it is by Ian Fleming's nephew, James Fleming. It includes translations from East European counties of essays written about Bond. You suguessted I take this to the James Bond "Talk" page, which I did. Neither of them have responded. What do you suggest I do next? I don't see what these two did as an edit war...more like vandalism from people who did not take the time to read the book. Thank you.Kmccook (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note you are making an assumption, and not assuming good faith to say the other editors have not read it and that you consider their edits vandalism. Comment on edits, not editors. And note it was you I considered to be edit warring, not the other editors. That aside, give it a week or so on the talk page talk rarely happens in 24 hours. Note in researching the book it does indeed not appear to be notable, and isn't generating any real reliable third party source discussion and analysis beyond advertising copy. Maybe that will change, but at this point it doesn't appear to be notable. And as a result having a seemingly non-notable book by a barely notable author (yes I know he's a relative, but notability is not inherited) doesn't belong in a Cultural Impact section. Time may tell a different story and it may be a case of "not yet", but right now looking into it in more detail, it does indeed appear to be non-notable and not a part of popular culture at this time. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book just came out and I read it last week. These essays were in Russian, Polish, etc. and not known to the West. Their cultural impact on the former Iron Curtain nations cannot be assessed until we have responses from their literary establishments. Kmccook (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why I didn't dismiss it, I just said it seems like a "not yet", too soon kind of thing. Until reliable third party sources talk about the book, it's not notable unfortunately. Time may change that. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message Edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self block Edit

Hi CT, was startled to see you blocked, but then I saw the reason. Hoping that you and your family are okay. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likewise; sending my regards to you and your family at this time, also. Patient Zerotalk 03:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take care. Sending good wishes. Venkat TL (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here to say the exact same thing. I really hope that things are okay, that you're doing well, and that everything gets resolved in the manner that's desired. I hope to see you back soon... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)
Thanks all. All is good. Canterbury Tail talk 20:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felix Leong and Jim Fung Edit

The reason I believe you had a vendetta against me was you had Felix Leong the Australian Wing Chun master deleted but didn’t touch Jim Fung who has stuff all sources and has never been on TV like Felix. Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021 Edit

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


  Administrator changes

  A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

  Technical news

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


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled Edit

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination Edit

A token of thanks

Hi Canterbury Tail! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

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



  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users Edit


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

British Isles vs other terms Edit

Look, I'm not interested in getting involved in an edit war with you, so I'm not going to revert your edit again. I do however think that you're misguided in your belief about the Irish government using the term "British Isles". In an Oireachtas debate, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that "[t]he Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term."[5] You are also wrong to say that the term Atlantic Archipelago is only used in an "obscure academic text" - it is increasingly common. That said, I don't have any particular attachment to the phrase: Britain and Ireland, the Anglo-Irish Isles, or the British-Irish isles are all equally fine to my ears. Moreover, the academic text in question you referenced was published in 1975, whereas this has been an issue that has gone longer. In 1954, the UN office in Geneva apologised for using the term, and promised not to do so again in future. The US State Department changed from using the term "British Isles" and instead started using "United Kingdom and Ireland" in 1958.[6] The Good Friday agreement completely avoids the term, opting for the very diplomatic "these islands".[7]

I'm trying to remain polite, but I will say that I personally find the term "British Isles" insensitive at best and outright offensive at worst. Even so, I don't have an issue with it's use on pages relating primarily to areas within the U.K., but on pages that are primarily related to Ireland, I think forcing the use of the term "British Isles" bery genuinely constitues a form of cultural colonialism. Some articles are written in American English, others British English, and others Hiberno-English. I urge you to reconsider changing this term on pages that are primarily going to be of interest to people who may find the term offensive, when inoffensive alternatives do exist. Xx78900 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes that one reference from the foreign minister, yes that happened. I'm afraid however what the Minister for Foreign Affairs once said, has never really been backed up backed up or future supported, the Irish government never took it further. Yes I'm aware of that declaration it's a commonly known event, but as we know one person's statement in a three pillar government does not an overall government policy make. A simple search shows that the Irish government administration uses the term fairly frequently, it's quite definitely not a banned term. (See a simple search through their releases and admin for example) whereas Atlantic Archipelago appears to have never once been used by the Irish government. For Atlantic Archipelago it really is a term that almost no one uses or knows. Some people have occasionally tried to push it as an alternative, but it's never really caught on. And yes the Irish and British governments when dealing with documentation between them now use these islands but that's also not a common consciousness term. Ireland and United Kingdom isn't the same as British Isles, it's about the countries rather than the landmasses.
It unfortunately appears to be a bit of a myth that seems to be perpetrated by a few that it's a completely unused term in Ireland, both officially and colloquially. As an Irish person myself, no one I know takes offense at the term, it gets used. I've obviously heard of people choosing to take offense at it of course, but most people just don't care or bat an eyelid at it, it's (anecdotally) only a real ultra nationalist minority that gets worked up on it.
The unfortunate truth of the term is it is A) the most common term for the islands and B) used in Ireland and by the Irish government. Until another term arises that's commonly used (which Atlantis Archipelago is definitely not that term, at least not at this moment in time) it's what we use if there is a need to talk about that grouping. There was an attempt to bring formal MOS guidelines around it at one point, though it died on the vine, but even that wasn't getting rid of the term and would use it in Irish contexts as well following the Irish governments usage of the term.
The real question is, does it need to be used at all? Is there a reason to use anything around the island grouping to make the point? Is largest in Ireland sufficient? Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Canterbury Tail, your doing a great job. The British Isles is usually used as a Geographical term, although seen as contentious, but in a quiz the longest river, correct answer would be the Shannon. Thor909Thor909 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC) (talk)Thor909 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 19:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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



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

Draft:Kerbal Space Program Wiki Edit

Hi! I see that you've deleted the above under CSD G11 ("Unambiguous advertising or promotion"), a speedy candidate I declined to delete under that exact criteria a few days ago (hence it was still on my watchlist). At the time, there was nothing promotional in the draft at all other than a mere statement of it's existence - in my opinion hardly promotional and about as neutral as you can get, and looking at the deleted history I see no intervening edits between my decline and your deletion. Did I err in my interpretation of this? I'm going by the line Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion in the G11 definition, which would seem to preclude G11 as a valid reason for deletion in this case?

To be clear, I'm not asking for a restoration here (I don't think that's worth the bother), I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Thanks! stwalkerster (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Some IP users have created a slew of draft articles with "Kerbal" in the title, some of which were blatantly promotional. I tagged a bunch of them last week, but they keep coming back. I'm not exactly sure what is going on, but the whole effort seems to be promotional, even if some of the individual pages are not. BilCat (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BilCat: right, and that's fine for pages which are actually promotional. This one was not, hence why I originally declined the G11. For pages in the draft space, unless it's truly problematic it's usually fine to just let G13 catch it. stwalkerster (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Willing to acknowledge that I may have made a mistake, but the main thing I saw in the logs was that it had been deleted on the 3rd for being promotional so the version after that was a recreation of a deleted page. And it was created by an IP that was being quite disruptive around the area and gaming edits. Canterbury Tail talk 01:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect sock Edit

Good catch with the sock who's been "fixing" WP:NOTBROKEN redirects since last April. I spotted a spate of similar accounts last summer and helped guide them patiently as you did here, but they persisted and were indef blocked for their own actions without a SPI. I suspect others may be around but the nature of their edits makes them difficult to spot. Certes (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defences of trolling and bad faith editing Edit

My talk page is not a place for defences of trolling and bad faith editing, if anyone uses it for that purpose it's going to be removed. Complaining about any commit messages relating to that IMHO takes some cheek, IMHO, and I'm going to consider any attempt at retaliation using admin processes a misuse of those processes and respond accordingly. Artw (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um I’m not editing in bad faith, but you are 100% entitled to remove messages from your talk page and that is not in dispute. However in your edit summary you referred to myself and other editors and “culture warring incel losers”. That is a personal attack and that is bad faith. Such personal attacks will not be tolerated on Wikipedia by anyone. And no one is retaliating against anyone, I’m simply stating if you continue such egregious personal attacks and unacceptable language that you may be blocked and I completely stand behind that. Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news



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

Weasel wording Edit

You recently reverted Rebroad (talk · contribs) for a nonsense edit, which they're continuing to revert back to. I read the associated source and it's not even debatable. I was going to raise it at ANI but the previous thread has been archived and I'm unsure of the correct way to reopen it. What would your advice be? Cheers. – 2.O.Boxing 11:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam paramater Edit

Template talk:Infobox country#electricity. Was added in 2019 with zero talk.Moxy-  23:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bold font for redirected terms in lead section Edit

Re removal of bold face from placenames in 1st para of Mere, Wiltshire ... it was probably me that added it, following the guidance at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT ... "Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section". Seems to be helpful to readers who arrive through a redirect, to reassure them that they got to the right article. -- Wire723 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah fair enough. I will confess I didn’t check the redirects. My apologies. I’ve undone it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I know it looks odd when some placenames are bolded and others are not. -- Wire723 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, it was my mistake. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question abt tokyo desc revert Edit

kinda new to editing so idk if this is the right place to ask this but why shouldnt it include the fact that its the largest city? including the largest city bit would make it consistent with the descs of: london, boston, paris, mexico city, moscow, columbus, and more that i havent listed

it doesnt matter or anything i just want to know so i dont make the same mistake in future edits Cpquinn0903 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read WP:SHORTDESC you'll find that the short description isn't there as a summary of the article, it only exists in order to disambiguate between titles that may seem similar and so when a user is presented with articles it's obvious what the article is about. Tokyo being a city in Japan is more than sufficient to perform that function. Adding largest city doesn't help the reader differentiate that article and know what it's about. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that and read the information short descriptions. My question is more about why it’s sufficient for Tokyo but not sufficient with the other cities I originally mentioned. You could say the same thing about London, Moscow, or Paris, and yet they all include the fact that it’s the largest city. Cpquinn0903 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We only edited Tokyo. If I edited those other articles it would also likely be changed. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the intent isn't universally applied, doesn't mean it's an issue. Canterbury Tail talk 13:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks for the info :) Cpquinn0903 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sillyness Edit

If anything, you're not the only one who made the same silly mistake. Doesn't change the rest, but hey, at least something to laugh at a bit. If you want something else to laugh at I'd recommend the "Short-Tempered Clavier" :) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New administrator activity requirement Edit

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

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

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

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

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Issues with user Rooveaouravevo Edit

Greetings! If you have time, your help is required here. There is Rooveaouravevo who doen't want cooperate, but only promotes his OR and POV: [8], [9] even after numerous attempts [10], [11] to explain to him that is not how it works here. After that account started enage in insults and personal attacks as you can see: [12] and here [13]. TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is already an ANI thread open about this user, you should post any additional information etc there where it can get a wider audience. Canterbury Tail talk 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A beer for you! Edit

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

A barnstar for you! Edit

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

Rachel Fury Edit

Hi, there's a new user disruptively editing Rachel Fury. Would it be be possible for some help dealing with this? Also is this a situation where asking for page semi-protection is appropriate rather than just asking to ban them (just trying to understand options here). Thanks Sciencefish (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems someone beat me to it. But yes, in future it's perfectly fine to reach out to me. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Podcast notablity Edit

Hi there. I understand the podcast name that was added in Jamie Dornan doesn't have a Wikipedia article, but it was discussed in The Guardian. And doesn't the notablity depend on whether it was discussed in a reliable source? I don't understand why it was reverted based on insignificance. (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s just a “I listened to this and I liked it mention”, it isn’t an indicator of notability and even if it was we don’t detail every little thing someone does. Not everything someone does is notable or worth mentioning. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the reply. Fitzwilliams (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ghalib Edit

Hi Canterbury Tail, There's an open-proxy IP user continuously removing a "further reading" from the article on Ghalib. I suspect it is the recent disruptive user that you blocked. In that case, can you please protect this page for a certain period of time? Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurolines and Canterbury Edit

Thanks for reverting my edit re Eurolines and Canterbury. Having done some more digging, I can see Eurolines are still operating in the UK, but I can't see any evidence that the coaches still call at Canterbury Dupont Circle (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's probably fair. And honestly, if we can't reference they go to Canterbury then we can't include it and it's currently unreferenced. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translations Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for that clean-up at Gardiner Expressway Edit

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

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

Talk:Republic of Ireland Edit

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

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

Notability of buses Edit

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022 Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neon-Noir reference Edit