User talk:Fylindfotberserk/Archives/2022/March

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Modussiccandi
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc

Guideline and policy news
 * A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
 * A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news
 * The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project.
 * Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022.
 * The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.

Arbitration
 * Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
 * Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
 * The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing file names
Hi Fylindfotberserk - just a friendly note of caution when correcting date formats In this edit you changed an image file name, so the image, being non-existent, appeared as a red text-string - sorted now - best wishes Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops! such a careless mistake. Thanks for correcting it sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries - we all make mistakes - me more than most - happy editing - Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy editing . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

icbse.com
Hi Fylindfotberserk. I see you are adding icbse.com as a source in some articles. I don't see any evidence that they are a reliable source of information. By their own definition they are a website for "CBSE Sample Papers, Syllabus, Online Tests & NCERT Solution", not very promising. I'm not sure what sources of data they use and they say nothing about who they are or what editorial process they have. In most articles I saw they are only used as a source that an institute exists, which is in my opinion less than nothing. They have no official standing, so being listed by the local board of education would at least show the institute is recognized, being listed by them shows nothing. I've been methodically removing them from college articles, when I noticed you are doing the opposite, so I thought we should communicate. --Muhandes (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Previously I used to employ the no-article no inclusion policy for educational institutes. But people have suggested that they may well be present and may be notable as well. Now we are suppose to use WP:Independent sources, thus using ICBSE when I'm unable to find any reliable source. Feel free to remove those entries/replace those will better sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This makes them unsourced. That's the reason why I used to remove entries without Wikipedia articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't argue that a reliable source is required, but icbse, career360 etc. are not reliable sources. In many cases I see they list colleges and schools which don't exist, hoaxes, cancelled institutions etc. They just couldn't care less. If you want reliable sources look for the state school board. For example in that article, the West Bengal School Board has a search engine here. --Muhandes (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That's why before I took a break last year, I used to just remove entries without articles. Many other users would also do that, but coming back I see a experienced editors keeping entries without sources that either do not have articles or had been AfDed/ Thanks for the link. It will be handy. I've used some reliable sources for the Asansol and Tripura entries and remove the ones (Asansol) for which no reliable sources could be found. Those schools are not present in the database you provided either (I may be missing something). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I did a quick check in that source and found Jaynagar Institution for Girls (C1308), Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution (C1128) and I assume the rest will be there too. I think this source can be used with something like this. --Muhandes (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Enquiry
Hi, Fylindfotberserk, I was just wondering if you would be interested in adminship as your work is of a high standard in all areas? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Access dates
Hey, Fylindfotberserk. I see that you've been adding access-dates to the citations. In case you missed, there's an archive discussion at IN regard this which you may be of your interest. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not in support of removing that. I use it as a marker to check when the citation was added or updated. And I do not believe that the readers would be interested in the dates in a citation, they'd just open up the links in quesions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Awadh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karra.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You have requested for a deletion of the category "Himachali people"
Hi there, I created the category Himachali people because it helps to give out the people in Wikipedia articles who are of the Himachali ethno-linguistic group. You referred to the category "People from Himachal Pradesh", though that is just people who were born there and some of them are of British or Punjabi ethnicity. I request for a repeal of your deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 'Himachali' is not an ethnic group nor a linguistic group, so no reason for that category. It is a demonym similar to Uttarakhandi, UPite, Delhite, etc. The word 'Himachal' itself was coined recently. For Uttarakhand, the ethnic groups are Kumaoni, Garhwali and for Uttar Pradesh, there are Awadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. Nothing called Himachali language either. Majority are Western Pahari speakers divided into many ethno-linguistic sub groups. As for the nomination, let the non-involved editors decide. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, how do they have their own dialect? How do they have their own ethnic cap/topi? GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why do I have to reiterate it again? Himachali is not a dialect and never is an ethnic group. Himachal Pradesh was created recently. The people speak Indic Pahari languages as well as Tibeto-Burmese, that's what their ethnicities are. There is no mention of a region called Himachal anywhere in history. You are unnecessarily pushing your POV, possibly because you don't want the category that you created to get deleted. I've no issues with categories like Garhwali people which you created, since Garwahli is an ethnolinguistic group. To justify your addition of the category in the Urvashi Rautela article that I patrol, I painstakingly went through various reliable sources to include her ethnicity in the article . But if you had created Uttarakhandi people category instead, I'd have asked for deleting it since People of Uttarrakhand is already a categoy and Uttarakhandi is not an ethnolinguistic group just like Himachali. I hope I've answered your queries. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the DOGRA PEOPLE? They are NOT KASHMIRIS and yet they are being identified as Kashmiri GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is identifying Dogras as Kashmiri? You created this isn't it? Dogra people is an ethnic group, so it is OK. But unless a source says a possible Dogra that she/he is a Dogra, we should not add that category. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)