User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 18


 * This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cheese Categories
The "Irish Cheeses" category is for any cheese made in Ireland. No probs with the "Northern Irish cheese" category, but why remove the "Irish Cheese" and "British Cheese" categories? Was there a discussion about the new categorization somewhere? --HighKing (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's standard subcategorisation. The discussion was at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 13. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Christ on a stick! Glad I missed it.  Thanks for recategorising.  --HighKing (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of "Category:Solicitor Generals of India"
I noticed that you tagged this for speedy renaming recently. I think the new name is wrong, and the category should be renamed "Category:Solicitors-General of India". The term solicitor-general contains a post-positive adjective (general), so the plural form is solicitors-general and not solicitor generals. See also. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not tag it; I merely found it already tagged but not listed at Categories for discussion/Speedy so put it there to get the proposed change resolved one way or the other. If you believe the new name is wrong then feel free to nominate it afresh. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, will do that. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A request
Hi Tim, can I ask you please not to challenge every editor who responds at the Sarah Brown RfC? It risks putting people off from responding at all. I understand that you and Obiwankenobi have strong feelings about this, but the RfC has to be run in such a way that people feel comfortable about turning up and expressing disagreement, without feeling they have to run the gauntlet, as it were. I hope you'll consider this. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering you have been responding to other editors there I don't think you can ask others to hold back. An RM is a discussion not a vote and when some (not all) people make questionnable statements they do need responding to for clarification.
 * The thing that I feel makes for the most tension is the free throwing around of charges of sexism (and the different definitions people seem to be using) and not assuming good faith of those who have wrestled with the conflicting issues before and come to the least worst conclusion that they have. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The principal of using names of countries at the time
I noticed that you created Category:1958 in Benin as a redirect, and was wondering if there was a way I could easily link to the discussion of the issue that lead to the creation of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Try Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 29. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559392272 your edit] to Advocate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * htm |title=House of Lords - Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v. Simons (A.P.) Barratt v. Ansell and Others Trading As Woolf Seddon (A Firm) Harris v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill (Conjoined Appeals) |

Talkback
Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus, please undo that
Obi-wan, a non-admin, had no right or authority at all to close a move request that was so evenly divided between support and oppose, that's bull. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I can try undoing it or you can request a move review. How as the closure decision seems to be ping-ponging open and closed at the moment and with so many sub-pages in the talk archives then that decision should be settled one way or the other first before there are too many more moves. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin." It clearly didn't meet two of the three wp:rmnac criteria, it should be undone and closed properly.  Should the closing administrator agree that there was consensus for a move, then it could go to move review, but I think just about anyone would agree (even those on the other side of the move debate) that there was no consensus.   user: j  (talk)  03:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (It has since been undone.)  user: j  (talk)  03:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hi Tim, can I ask you again to reconsider your position regarding these requested moves about women? You had commented several times in that discussion and the consensus remained unclear, so it wasn't appropriate for you to use the tools to delete and move it. I hope you'll consider undoing your move. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Admins often process others' closures regardless of involvement - it's the closure not the process that's the key matter. I saw the discussion had been closed but the page was unmoved an hour later so implemented it, answered the above section and then went to bed. Since then it's been reverted, rereverted and now put up for move review which is probably the best way to settle it given some of the language flying around. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Any clue about this?
In other issues ... any idea why Cydebot refuses to work on the Royal College Colombo ones listed from WP:CFDS? Is it the comma in the target categories? Surely not ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind—got it. Sorry for setting off your notification thing so many times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton move review
You are invited to join the discussion at Move_review/Log/2013_June. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

UK labour/employment law categories
Hi there. I think you recently helped to move all the categories for United Kingdom labour law and United Kingdom labour case law to "employment". Please see me addition to Talk:United Kingdom labour law. Can you please revert all the category changes? I really have no idea why you or someone didn't ask me, considering that I created just about all 195 pages. Cheers,  Wik idea  12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Category changes must go through the category discusson pages. Invariably they tend to follow the name of the main article unless there's good specific reason to deviate from that. I notice you have arbitarily reverted the name change despite it going through a Requested Move. Regardlss of whether you agree with the RM or feel the facts were accurate, this is an out of process move against consensus and will be reverted.
 * Regarding asking or not, it was another editor who nominated the category for renaming; I merely processed the request when it was not objected to. Many editors take the view that it is the responsibility of other editors to keep relevant pages on their watch list and tha there is no ownership. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know where to ask for a formal revert. Could you help me out please?  Wik idea  13:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a mess on the talk page. I'd really appreciate your help. Perhaps you can appreciate that this is frustrating!  Wik idea  13:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a go - your mistake was including square brackets in the template entries when they're generated automatically. However there's no article at United Kingdom employment law history so which one are you trying to move and where to? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, it was actually History of labour law in the United Kingdom. Is that notice working properly now? Thanks,  Wik idea  14:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks it but the final test will be in the next few hours when the RM bot notices it. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Template null edits
On June 20, you null-edited a number of templates: Yesno, Nihongo, Namespace_detect, If_pagename, Category_handler/numbered, Category_handler/blacklist and Category_handler. Since then, the English Wikipedia job queue has done nothing except process link updates for those templates, so there's now 2 weeks of backlog. Can you explain why you did those null edits? -- Tim Starling (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a big category change involving a lot of categories now in Category:Articles containing non-English-language text and Category:Articles with non-English-language external links, (almost) all populated by convoluted template construction. After amending the templates containing the category names, many of the articles were not even invisibly displaying the updated categories due to the way they're constructed and even null edits on the articles were often not solving the problem (and the job queue has been noticeably failing to update categories in recent months). Only null edits on the templates solved the issue, albeit with further null edits to the articles, but with multiple templates involved each had to be gone through individually. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If a null edit on the article doesn't make it appear in the category, assuming the template was generating the category correctly, then that's a bug I don't know about and I'd like to track down. In any case, there's no reason to think that null-editing the template would have any effect. I think the most likely explanation is that whatever was wrong with the template or the system was fixed before you did the second round of null edits to articles, independently of the other actions you took. -- Tim Starling (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that history would support that position. This is not something new, but has been reported over several years.  I have noticed that the problem seems more severe when there is template embeding.  Oh, in this case, the debris may still be visible.  After the articles in the category count went to zero, there were still articles in the categories for days.  Any touching of the article fixed it.  My gut says the problem is somewhere in the job queue. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "template embedding"? Obviously if a category is generated by a template, then changes are done either via the job queue or article null edit, is that what you mean? Most of the bug reports we get about this are just job queue lag, which is the problem I'm trying to fix at the moment. As I said above, Timrollpickering alone caused two weeks of job queue lag, so in that context, you would expect that template updates wouldn't be reflected in updated category listings after only a few days. -- Tim Starling (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Atlanta if you start looking at the articles, you will see some members here are actually in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Atlanta, Georgia. You need a null edit to get them to show up in the category list correctly.  This is a simple version of the problem.  I created this 'problem' by simply editing the project template (I think that was what I edited).  Not sure if this one is also an embed issue or not.  The problem that started this was, as I recall, an issue where numerous, possibly over a hundred templates, included another template lang?  After the update, it was days without seeing any decrease in the number of articles in old categories.  This is extremely frustrating to those trying to close discussions.  If there are still members, the work to close a discussion is not really completed.  For your information, this problem is so bad that we are waiting on approval of a bot to do the null edits!  So, the underlying cause of what is being reported needs to be identified and fixed.  I'm afraid that in the end, all we are seeing is the symptom of the job queue not delivering as expected in a timely basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for NI21
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

THE Wikileaks Party
You moved The Wikileaks Party to Wikileaks Party.

Unfortunately though, the "The" is absolutely, definitely part of the name. See here.

Any chance you could move it back please? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's OK. It's been fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

2011 England riots
Hi Tim, would you consider undoing your recent move of the above? There were no riots outside England. Reliable sources, including academic sources, refer to the riots as the England or English riots, e.g. Simone X. Zhang, Constructing the Riots: Interpretations and Consequences of the 2011 England Riots, Havard University Press, 2012.

In addition, the article is part of a series of articles about riots in England, and only two supported the move, plus one conditional support, and an oppose. See discussion on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That Requested Move had clear consensus; the closer of the previous one found consensus would support a similar title. The conditional support was based on the article being expanded with the relevant information but invariably in such cases something has to be the first to change; there was no firm oppose merely a question on the matter. In such circumstances the outcome was entirely clear. It would be quite improper to move it back just because someone asks me to. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It can't be expanded with material about rioting elsewhere, because there was no rioting elsewhere, and therefore no sources. See, for example, "Richard Phillips, Diane Frost and Alex Singleton, "Researching the Riots", The Geographical Journal, Vol. 179, No. 1, March 2013:
 * "These disturbances began on 6 August following the police shooting of Mark Duggan, a black resident of Tottenham, North London. Over the following days, they spread within London and to other English cities. ..."There were no riots in English cities such as Sheffield and Newcastle, and the streets of Welsh and Scottish cities remained equally calm."
 * When closing, admins have to make sure the move is compliant with the content policies, and there are no sources saying the rioting was nationwide. So now we have 1981 England riots, 2001 England riots, but instead of 2011 England riots, we have a title implying that, this time, it was more widespread, when it wasn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * People have been making many different claims on this point and citing sources all over. At the end of the day the outcome of the discussion reflects what was contributed to it, not arguments and evidence that wasn't put. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again, would you be willing to move it now? Another RM was opened, and it's unanimous in favour of 2011 England riots. The seven days will be up in a few hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Learn to mop better please
Although, I guess it has been a few years, so surely you know by now that being a Janitor doesn't make you an emperor, right? You can't actually close a deletion as keep and then pronounce a new policy the rest of us mere non-Janitors must follow. Anyway, I've cleaned up the mess you left around back in March 2011. Cheers! -- Kendrick7talk 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * CFD discusses the inclusion/exclusion criteria for categories as well as their mere existance; the close merely followed the outcome of that discussion which was a consensus against inclusion of biographies in the categories. Arbitarily reinterpreting the outcome some years later and then rewriting the notices on what have been quite controversial categories isn't going to make for a stable environment. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't think the proper closure of a WP:CFD is "keep but don't list any articles." Everything we do here is an allegation (WP:V not WP:TRUTH). That's all besides the fact that Admins do not have the right to invent policy out of whole cloth, per WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7talk 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Admins do not invent policy, no matter how many times you claim otherwise, they interpret the consensus outcome and implement it. CFD is a legitimate forum to decide on category contents, especially when the desire is for a global approach. You may disagree with the consensus decision or you may disagree with the outcome but either way there are mechanisms to challenge it and seek either a redetermination or a new discussion. Simply reinterpreting the outcome and then removing the notices is still not a good approach and it seems you haven't taken the reasons for your block on board. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this totally inappropriate conduct from User:Kendrick7. And the fact that the the issue has sat quietly for two years means that User:Timrollpickering's pronouncements achieved consensus. StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what problem Kendrick was trying to solve with his recent actions, but from my perspective, the problem is that the result of the discussion is being completely disregarded for some categories (eg. Category:Antisemitism and subcats) and enforced for others, leaving us in exactly the same position in which we began. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is probably a reason why deletion is preferred over keeping with cleanup. That is not possible in every case, but this case may illustrate another form of the cleanup problem we can be left with.  The only way to 'fix' this type of change and repurpose would be to protect the category page, but is that advisable?  Even if that happens, it still would not prevent inappropriate population of a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing block notices
Hello, I was following ANI and ended up at User talk:IFreedom1212. Per User pages, aren't users allowed to remove active block notices as long as they have not posted an unblock request? I was under the impression, from reading WP:UP just linked, that as long as the block was not contested by the user, they could remove the block notice at will. But as soon as they post an unblock request, THEN the block notice must be reinstated. So in this case, is talk page removal appropriate? I will ping   since they too undid the blanking. Rgrds. --64.85.214.126 (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "...and any other notice regarding an active sanction". An active block is an active sanction. -- Neil N   talk to me  12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought sanctions were something like a topic ban or IBAN and a block was a block. Meh, just asking, then shouldn't the UP page clarify that a block is a sanction? Not really concerned about that too much, I guess.  Mainly, since talk page access was revoked, should not the user have been told on their talk page (rather than through one of four edit summaries) that they could not do this or their TPA would be revoked?  I know it is just 24 hrs, but it seems a little harsh without giving them fair notice (unless there is background I missed).  Thanks for hearing me out.  Rgrds. --64.85.214.126 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. But given the editor re-appeared after a three year absence and immediately got himself blocked I'd imagine there wasn't a lot of patience to go around. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point. --64.85.214.126 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear Timrollpickering.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.

Your AWB edit summaries
In case you hadn't noticed, the edit summaries you generate when using AWB look a bit odd (for example, most of the ones that can be seen here) It seems that AWB may be truncating the replacement string and leaving off the closing square brackets, and this seems to disrupt link formation later on as well. Of course, it's a very minor issue, but I thought you should at least know about it. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577164081 your edit] to Demographics of China may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1953-2010 '''
 * 1953-2010 '''

Title/style confusion help
I don't know how to deal with this one: Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber DBD 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)