User talk:Mclay1/Archive 4

Category:Redirects from EPs
Category:Redirects from EPs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of alternative names for Metatron


The article List of alternative names for Metatron has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * List contains abundant unsourced information, links to deleted articles, "misspellings," and generally unencyclopedic content. It may reflect original research. Its notability is debatable. Efforts at improvement have not turned up reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the article but thank you for telling me anyway.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 Febrary 2013 with Sue Gardner.

Details at Meetup/Brisbane/7. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in SEQ)

Template:2009music listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:2009music. Since you had some involvement with the Template:2009music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Iketsi (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:2010music listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:2010music. Since you had some involvement with the Template:2010music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Iketsi (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:2011music listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:2011music. Since you had some involvement with the Template:2011music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Iketsi (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Makhai


A tag has been placed on Makhai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Revolution1221 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

IPA for English listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPA for English. Since you had some involvement with the IPA for English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cathfolant (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Set category
Template:Set category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Set categories
Category:Set categories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Northern Songs
Category:Northern Songs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Militant organization listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Militant organization. Since you had some involvement with the Militant organization redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). GB fan 23:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from postal abbreviation
Template:R from postal abbreviation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Football (real) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Football (real). Since you had some involvement with the Football (real) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 23:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Long swordsman listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Long swordsman. Since you had some involvement with the Long swordsman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ansh666 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Brisbane Meetup
Hi there! I'm dropping you this notice as you've indicated on your userpage that you're a Wikipedian in the Brisbane area. Assuming significant interest, I'm organising an event for August 22 at the SLQ Café in South Brisbane, and we'd love for you to come along. A list of people interested in coming, and a discussion space has been created at Meetup/Brisbane/8. Hope to see you there! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Potential admin
Hi, I notice you're on List of administrator hopefuls. Wikipedia would benefit from more admins. If you have been editing for more than 12 months (preferably 24+ months), and have been editing fairly consistently for the past 6 months (preferably 12+ months) with at least 100 edits a month (this tool will help) - or an explanation for any gaps, and haven't been blocked or topic banned in the past three years - or a good explanation for a recent block or ban, don't have a recent history of edit warring or arguing with other editors, feel you can explain why you wish to be an admin, can demonstrate some understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and processes, or know where to go for guidance, and are confident enough to go through a RfA, please get in touch with me. We can talk about it some more, and if all looks OK, I'll nominate you.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for this. A couple of years ago, I was editing very frequently, and that's when I would have put myself on that list. Since then, just because of life in general, I am much less active. I would still love to be an admin, but I haven't had 100 edits a month for a while, and I can't promise that I will any time soon. Apart from that, I do feel that I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including the Manual of Style (of which I initiated the move to the current subpage structure). If you feel it's still possible for me to be an admin now or in the future, I'd love to continue this conversation. Cheers,  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  12:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for getting back to me. After looking at your contributions I agree with your own assessment. You would need between six and twelve months of consistently higher contribution levels to have a reasonable chance of the community accepting you as an admin. If you do that, and still feel that you would like to help out further by becoming an admin, please get in touch again, and we can have a chat then about what would need to be done. Assisting in admin related areas, such as AfD, AN, CSD, etc, plus getting involved in GA - doing reviews, and perhaps getting an article to GA level, would also help. Regards  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Beetals listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beetals. Since you had some involvement with the Beetals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Brisbane Meetup in January 2016
Hi there! I'm dropping you this notice as you've indicated on your userpage that you're a Wikipedian in the Brisbane area. To celebrate fifteen years of Wikipedia, we are holding a celebration in Brisbane on the 16th of January and you are invited! For further information, and to register your interest, please see our meetup page. Hope to see you there!

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery.

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Beatles discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don't Let Me Down. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect categorization
Hi Matt! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect that might interest you. Good faith!  Paine  20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Special characters and sort keys
On the wiktionaries, sort keys always delete special characters or replace them with blanks. This basic principle of bibliotechnics (systematically used in all paper dictionaries) does not seem to be covered in the Wikipedia conventions (or at the very least I can't find it). Urhixidur (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * From WP:SORTKEY: "Because the software uses an imperfect computer sorting rather than true alphabetical ordering (see details), it is important that some sort keys be adjusted. Accented characters must be replaced by their English-language counterparts. For example, the Łódź article uses."
 * It also says: "Only hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops punctuation marks should be kept in sort values. All other punctuation marks should be removed. The only exception is the apostrophe should be removed for names beginning with O'. For example, Eugene O'Neill is sorted ." It's not clear whether en-dashes and em-dashes should be kept. If not, they should probably be replaced by hyphens. I've been using AWB to go through the redirects, and it's not easy to tell in the program whether the mark is a dash or hyphen.
 * Wikipedia used to sort upper- and lower-case letters differently, but that was changed a while ago. I think it's still good practice to use capitals where appropriate for readability. I've also been putting commas in when words have been re-arranged (as is the standard practice in English), because it can make a difference to the sort order. If everything is standardised, there won't be any inconsistency.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to WP:SORTKEY.
 * "It's not clear whether en-dashes and em-dashes should be kept" : definitely replace them with hyphens in the sort keys. Variants that differ by the lengths of their dashes should sort together, and the numerical values of the characters are too different to guarantee this unless the sort key substitution is done. Urhixidur (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirection sort keys
I'm a little puzzled by your series of reversions to the sort keys of Category:Country data redirects (for instance, this one). Although there is some merit to sorting these redirects by their raw character sequences, the category is far from being consistently sorted this way as yet, with for instance Template:Country data Duchy of Brunswick sorted under B for Brunswick. Care to comment? Urhixidur (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the category wasn't consistent. Unless there is a consensus I didn't realise about, I didn't see the need for your changes, so I reverted them. In my opinion, it makes way more sense to sort by the actual name of the redirect (minus the "Country data" bit), rather than in a reversed order, as you did it, or by the name of the template that the redirect points to it, like others do. I suppose we should take the opportunity to discuss it somewhere and gain a consensus.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  21:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My intent was to regroup entries that are obviously about the same thing under the same key. Thus Yugoslavia and Republic of Yugoslavia should be together, and so on. I stress "obviously" because an entry like ZA (which points to South Africa) should remain under Z because its meaning is not immediately apparent. This type of sort key tuning is very useful (to the reader) in categories that are lists of countries and such like; the particular category of concern here (Country data redirects) is more of a maintenance category, and therefore could be sorted either way. The important thing is to sort the entire category consistently, which is currently not the case. My preference is for the analogical sort I've already outlined. What do you think? Urhixidur (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree on the "ZA" point. Your point about "Yugoslavia" makes sense, and I'm unsure which way is better. We have to think about what the reader would expect. In this case, because it's a maintenance category, and quite an obscure one, the reader will almost always be a (probably experienced) Wikipedia editor. Because there are cases like ZA or even a one-word name that points to something completely different, I'd be expecting to find them under their actual names. Another user changed some of the redirects I created so that the sort key was the same as the target (like ZA being sorted under "South Africa"). To me, that's confusing, and it's not clear from looking at the list of pages in the category where a particular page is pointed. It makes sense to just use the name of the page as the sort key, unless there's a reason to do otherwise. If we were to do it your way, I think we'd need a note at the top of the category telling readers that that's how they were sorted. It would also need to be properly standardised, like "Yugoslavia, Republic of", formatting it consistently for every country with a prefix, even for cases where the actual article about the country has the prefix in the title.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note added to the category page. I do believe the analogical sort will be more useful to maintainers, because it allows one to find, at a glance, all the redirects that point to the same thing. There are a few redirects where it is less clear which sort key is preferable: for instance, I think "British India" is distinct enough to merit being filed under B rather than I (it is more "British" than "Indian"). What's funny is that this is yet another instance where a certain feature I've requested long ago from the Wiki developers would be helpful: the ability to file a page under multiple sort keys. Urhixidur (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it make more sense to keep Template:Country data United Mexican States sorted alongside the other Mexico entries? Urhixidur (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As a name by itself, I figure it's like the United Arab Emirates. But I guess sorting it as "Mexican States, United" works too.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If it were alone, I would indeed sort it under U, but since it is just an alternate form of the long form of Mexico… Urhixidur (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose you're right.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:R from real name listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from real name. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from real name redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Loveworthy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Loveworthy. Since you had some involvement with the Loveworthy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Template editing
Hello. You would seem to meet the criteria for Template editor. Would this be useful to you? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey. That would be great, actually. Thanks. So do I just make a request here?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  12:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please take note of the templated message below. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.


 * Useful links
 * All template-protected pages
 * User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
 * Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Floruit
Through mostly legitimate methods I've managed to deal with the issues you raised at WT:WPT regarding b., commons file inline, and see section. The last one on your list is floruit. I've set up some tracking categories, and it appears that none of the new stuff is actually used (only the params that were originally included). Based on the ridiculous discussion at the b. talk page, even if we both comment that these parameters are rather useless and should be removed, I don't think they'll listen. What do you think is the best course of action? I'm not sure garnering assistance from WPT would help (since it's not terribly active), and I can't really think of any policy-based reasons to "keep it simple" so to speak. It basically comes down to us (it's overly complicated with unnecessary bells and whistles) vs them (it's not overly complicated etc). Basically, IDONTLIKEIT vs ILIKEIT. Let me know what you think. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. I'm not sure what else can be done but fight it until he eventually gives in (but not so much as to be called an edit war). It's difficult to get any further opinions because, as you said, there is generally low activity on and care for this template and related pages as it's so minor. There must be a process for this kind of thing, but I don't know what it is. M.Clay1 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work with merging the other templates. That was a good call. M.Clay1 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of English contractions
Wikipedia:List of English contractions, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of English contractions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of English contractions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;&#124;✝️&#124;ze/zer&#124;😹&#124;T/C&#124;☮️&#124;John15:12&#124;🍂 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cards Against Humanity Facism Pack logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Cards Against Humanity Facism Pack logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Beatles Recording Sessions
Thanks for the improvements! Wikifrits (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Category namespace has been nominated for discussion
Category:Category namespace, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. w umbolo  ^^^  09:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS:DAB listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MOS:DAB. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MOS:DAB redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Storage pit (archaeology)
Hello,

I understand why you moved the article, but I thought I would explain why it is named that way. It is one of the articles about prehistoric life that is in the Prehistoric technology. By making it a generic "storage pit" article title, it means that the focus of this article could change... and no longer specific to prehistoric pits of specific uses.

We could made storage pit a disambig page to storage and other related articles... and return storage pit (archaeology) to keep that it's own specific topic. How would that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and moved it to Prehistoric storage pits. That seems to make the most sense and is the easiest solution.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's probably the best solution. It's not a good idea to disambiguate pages where no other pages of the same title or even similar titles exist. M.Clay1 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Free sugars listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free sugars. Since you had some involvement with the Free sugars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bod (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Set categories has been nominated for discussion
Category:Set categories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Module:Ancient Greek (ALA-LC)
Module:Ancient Greek (ALA-LC) has been nominated for merging with Module:Ancient Greek. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

¬ listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ¬. Since you had some involvement with the ¬ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ass Mode listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ass Mode. Since you had some involvement with the Ass Mode redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

J. S. Back listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J. S. Back. Since you had some involvement with the J. S. Back redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question)  04:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipaedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipaedia. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipaedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Category:Redirects from catchphrases / Template:R from catchphrase
Category:Redirects from catchphrases (and Template:R from catchphrase) have been nominated for merging with Category:Redirects from slogans (and Template:R from slogan, respectively). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the categories' and templates' entry at Categories for discussion. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"Template:R from incorrect punctuation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect punctuation. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from incorrect punctuation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from other disambiguation has been nominated for renaming
Category:Redirects from other disambiguation has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages has been nominated for deletion
Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Namespace has been nominated for renaming
Category:Namespace has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Message
Why was my message removed and not archived? Just wondered. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 13:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 13:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I moved your reply to your talk page. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom
- SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My Bonnie Tony Sheridan
Hello, I had removed the sentence «Because of the later fame of the Beatles, the material has been repackaged several times» from the introduction because I felt it did not belong here. On Sheridan's My Bonnie album, apart for the title track and The Saints, none were repackaged. The material you speak of are the 8 tunes recorded by the Beatles with or without Sheridan in Hamburg in 61 & 62. You say «the exact material involving the Beatles is unknown», but most experts (ie Mark Lewishon and Hans Olof Gottfridsson) seem to agree that only 9 songs were recorded and one was lost (Swanee River). Thus, I have rewritten part of the intro to make it closer to what I believe is right. Regards. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes but it is still true that the non-Beatles Beat Brothers tracks have been repackaged because of the Beatles. The Beatles recordings that were not included on the album were recorded in the sessions for the album, so are still covered by the article content. M.Clay1 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The repackaging of the BBros tracks are not from the My Bonnie album (exept for Ready Teddy for the 1984 CD) but from a single (Ruby Baby / What'd I Say - 1963) and an E.P. (Ya Ya). Ruby Baby seems to have been previously unreleased. The Beatles tracks and the album tracks were from two different sessions 6 months apart. For that reason, I do not agree with your assessment that «The Beatles recordings that were not included on the album were recorded in the sessions for the album ». But I believe my new edit adresses your objections while taking in account mine. Thanks for caring! JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Sinatra
Please stop at Talk:Frank Sinatra. Normally you would be free to battle on and insist on your point of view. However, the topic of infoboxes is under discretionary sanctions as noted at above. That means it's best to let it go. Your question was sure to be in good faith and so on but it is rather out of place in the survey section of a highly contested RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The one who needs to stop is SchroCat. M.Clay1 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the collapse heading, that's a good idea. You are correct about the other editor but multiple comments in the survey section is not desirable. After all, the matter has been fought out at Arbitration and people should live with the fact that views are hot on both sides. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (only that the RfC is not about the infobox, only if it should be collapsed or open, no more. Some don't even understand the RfC question, it seems. I was called a monster five years ago, same article, same question. I tried to take it with humour. It's tiring, though. So much ado about so little.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He has made the same number of comments as me and is abusing other editors. That's exactly the behaviour that led to the sanctions. Why is no action being taken? I don't understand the point of the sanctions when the main offenders this time are the same ones as last time. M.Clay1 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just so you're aware
In case you weren't aware, there is a discussion going down at Arbcom regarding you. ~ HAL  333  01:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at AE
There is a discussion concerning you at arbitration enforcement. While I know that you have participated at the discussion you may wish to revisit it as sanctions have been suggested against you by an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am aware and have responded. I strongly disagree with their assessment and would appreciate any clarification. MClay1 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Appeal
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions closed and archived
Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions has been closed and archived. The archived amendment request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Template:R from incorrect punctuation" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from incorrect punctuation. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Not Just a Pretty Face (Rowan Atkinson album)


The article Not Just a Pretty Face (Rowan Atkinson album) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG. No coverage to be found. Not mentioned at either Rowan Atkinson or Rowan Atkinson filmography."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lennart97 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Not Just a Pretty Face (Rowan Atkinson album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Not Just a Pretty Face (Rowan Atkinson album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Not Just a Pretty Face (Rowan Atkinson album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Telugu folk literature
It is better to include a subject when adding expert to a page (like so that it can be sorted into the proper category. jp×g 08:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted, thanks. Though the template may end up deleted anyway. MClay1 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:The_Beatles_and_radio
Category:The Beatles and radio has been nominated for deletion. Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 21. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon pound
FYI, I have wp:nuked the article Anglo-Saxon pound because it was an irredeemable mess of OR and post-Conquest material copied blindly from other articles. It was easy to see what should not have been in the article but difficult to add what should. I have left a note at Anglo-Saxons asking if anyone there has the expertise to make into something useful or (perhaps more sensibly) merge it into the Anglo-Saxons article. Yours was a good call, I'm annoyed that I didn't see the wood for the trees before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)