User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 20

Doctors galore
Hi T. Great to see your name again. Fanboy splitting hairs time over your post here - Hurndall was playing the same Dr that Hartnell had. Hurt played a different one from the others. Just one fans opinion of course and I certainly see where you are coming from. Apologies for intruding into your evening (my time anyway) with this but it does give me the chance to leave the following. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the virtual card. I see what you mean but that's an in-universe distinction and the box should be out-of-universe. Otherwise you might as well add the Doctor's additional faces from the Brain of Morbius! Timrollpickering (talk)

Winnie...
Hi Tim.

I started a new section in the Churchill talk-page regarding the name change, and would welcome your thoughts on it.

Merry Christmas to you. Or Happy Holidays, if you prefer!

Gnu.

Gnu Ordure (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:'Iolani School alumni


A tag has been placed on Category:'Iolani School alumni requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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. Bazj (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Sussex Ambulance Service‎ for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sussex Ambulance Service‎ 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/Sussex Ambulance Service‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
 * Please note that the AfD was created a month ago but that the nominator didn't do it right, so it's only made its first appearance on a log page just now. Thanks.  -- Finngall  talk  14:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kamek98 at AN/I
As you closed Kamek98's recent move request, you may be interested in commenting at the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 03:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Request reopen
I request that the move request on Talk:Star Wars (film) be reopened. I have been told that starting another RM is not an unacceptable move during a Move Review on the last RM (which I wasn't too sure what it did so it closed as MR was not what I thought it was) and it not disruptive in the future. Yes, there have been six RM on that page. But have you considered bias? Considered facts? Did you weight down the evidence?

The evidence I provided has clearly demonstrated (unlike the before RM, where I and other users failed to provide reliable evidence for the RM) a reasonable proposal this time which should be brought to tables once again. Wouldn't your close, which I understand another RM can be frustrating but sometimes it's for a good reason, be disruptive as it prevents reasoning, correctness, and further justice (I don't mean revenge by justice ) from being brought forth?

There isn't anything stating anything about a year from what I know. Your claim that nobody should have to state the same thing again. You're right, nobody should have to do that, but what if they didn't state the same thing this time? The evidence brought forth has been gathered differently and more efficiently and more reliable this time. Most people in prior discussions claimed COMMONNAME as the reason for the opposition. Well, this time, the claim COMMONNAME supports the move as I have brought ngram statistics that prove the prior discussions were wrong and thus I have contested it once again. Yeah, that sounds negative, but I mean it in the most righteous way if that makes sense. I'm not simply refusing to let it go, I'm just trying to re-approach the subject again more appropriately. I have waited a month (considering prior discussions and debating whether or not I should try again, too see if it was reasonable) so how is that disruptive?

And you didn't even let it have a chance.

Please hear me out and consider re-opening it. Thank you. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I, for one request not reopening the move. Opening new requests in different places every week or so until everyone gets tired of dealing with them is not an acceptable method of discussion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, because I totally did that. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed


 * Quite simply I'm not reopening that RM. Even in the previous one many users were demanding the subject be given a rest and clear consensus has been found twice already. Coming back after a few weeks with an extra response to oppose arguments is not going to suddenly change things. I won't say anything further here as there is now an ANI discussion on the user conduct. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I'll retire from Wikipedia. I don't have to put up with this. I can go outside and take a walk without being ANI'd for participating. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed

Formal apology
I have come to realize my actions were disruptive and unprofessional; my actions were uncalled for and too soon. They were good-willed but unnecessary and tedious — possibly even dickish — and I'm sorry. I do realize nobody is going to be left thinking the official title is Star Wars and even if they do, it doesn't matter. I need to let it go for now. Possibly a long time. Like maybe even three-movies worth a long time.

Anyways, we got off to the wrong foot. This should have not forced me to "retire" although I did not. It should not be a reason for me to leave the community because it is downright silly.

I'm sorry. I hope you understand why I was so uneasy about this. I'm not the Jedi I should be But I hope more that you can forgive me and not look at me as a mischievous editor due to this. Everything I do, I do in an attempt to help. And I think I may have gone about it incorrectly. Screw it, I did it incorrectly.

Anyways, I'm sorry. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Greetings! Since you previously introduced a proposal to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, would you like to help draft a new proposal on this topic at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request? Since some editors have objected to a new move request on the assertion that there has been no change since the last inconclusive request, it would be particularly helpful to find newer evidence (arising within the past nine months) in support of such a proposal.

This proposal is likely to launch about a week or so after the closure of the current Village Pump discussion on whether another move request should be permitted, if that discussion produces a consensus in favor of permitting another move request. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Main roads with Norwegian terminus in Kristiansand
Category:Main roads with Norwegian terminus in Kristiansand, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Elka Whalan
Can you please consider reverting your page move for Elka Whalan. The subject clearly identifies with that name, see her website http://elkawhalan.com/. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to do so as the RM had been open over two weeks and received no oppose comments. You'd have to start a fresh discussion but not a reverse RM just yet - see what the issues are first. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo 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/Hartriono B. Sastrowardoyo until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

Edward Mechling
Hello, I am one of Edward Mechling's great-granddaughters, Madelyn Mechling. I am wondering if you have any information on my great-grandfather, Edward Mechling?

Subject names
I have reverted your incorrect revert of my change of "Chinese Studies" to "Chinese studies". Subject names are not usually proper nouns by themselves and should never be capitalised unless obviously part of a proper name ~ which is not apparently the case here. Obviously, however, "Chinese" is capitalised in this instance. But it is a "Chinese studies centre" in the same way as we would write a "religious studies centre", a "philosophy studies centre" and so on. These are all generic. If you have any objection to this please do so according to the MoS (which I believe is already very clear on this matter). Thank you, Afterwriting (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on
The very first Hillary RM on record is Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_5, filed by you back in 2007. It managed to get one support besides you and ten opposes. Back then I think the style was to close with 'No consensus to move' regardless of the level of support, whereas later 'no consensus' meant something close and/or complicated. But if ever there was an RM where there was indeed "consensus" on what the right title should be, this is it. Yeah, we're both involved parties like you say, but how else would you interpret this one? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh, never mind, this was too worked up on my part. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In that case I'll not comment on substance and all I'll say is that my memory of those days is different. Ever since becoming an admin back in 2005 it's been my understanding that "no consensus" should never be used when it's a clear "keep" or "not moved" and that's not something that's only developed since. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oriya->Odia
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (gossip)  @ 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 3
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:1968_US_Open_%28tennis%29&diff=676886869&oldid=640833454], Year by category has an odd feature: If  is omitted or empty then the main category for the year is automatically added instead, in this case Category:1968. I avoided that by stuffing another existing cat in there in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:1968_US_Open_%28tennis%29&diff=next&oldid=676886869] (my edit summary should have said Category:1968 instead of just 1968). I also removed the existing explicit listing of that category although it doesn't matter whether the category is added once or twice. I have done the same for all years 1969 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:1969_US_Open_%28tennis%29&diff=677099551&oldid=640833470] to 2003 so those years at Categories for discussion/Working/Manual should be ready for category deletion (I'm an admin but not used to processing that page). Category:US Open Series by year shows 1969 to 2003 are all empty now. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move
Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Westfield Derby about moving articles to "Intu" X and I'm only notifying you as you participated in a previous move,

BTW sorry if you got a ping earlier - Something went wrong so figured I'd just post this to everyone instead, Fun times! ,

Anyway thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:High school dropouts
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:High school dropouts. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. p b  p  23:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: this edit
With respect, the entire point of creating the "image of..." categories was to separate photo requests from general image requests; Photo requested should categorize into "photo of..." categories, and any non-empty photo categories should be un-redirected into categories of their own, as has been done in many cases. Your edit effectively erases the separation I put many hours into achieving. If we were to lump photos and images together again, we might as well just turn this template into a redirect to Image requested (which I obviously do not endorse). — swpb T 14:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The template was populating hundreds of redirect categories for ages. In such circumstances it had to be fixed to put them all in the target categories. If a separation is to be achieved it should not be done by redirects. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Clans of Montenegro
Please explain your revert of my move of the category Serb clans to Clans of Montenegro. I take it that you are an expert in the area since you are acting so boldly, so please do provide your argumentation. This issue has been discussed a million times and has remained this way only thanks to a clique of Serb nationalist editors who continue to pursue their POV through supposedly encyclopedic articles. So, please do elaborate your revert. Sideshow Bob 07:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If the issue has been discussed "a million times" please link to them. The tensions in this area recommend against arbitrary (and poorly enacted) moves, especially when the results are a mess. The main article was not renamed, the description was not changed and the contents not moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs
Hi Tim.

Thanks for you close of Talk:Kim Davis.

In light of this, might you consider closing and implementing the consensus of Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves. I hope the indecision on the question of how much explanation to include shouldn't prevent the implementation of the clear consensus that the long tradition of this sort of wait should be included in the written instructions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

SALTing was against our policies
Hi, I noticed was salted, although it had not been repeatedly recreated before, as required by our WP:SALT policy. I'm not sure you're the admin who salted it, after you closed the CfD, but if you were, I'd ask you to un-salt the page and try harder to follow (or propose to change) our policies. Note that I'm not invested in that category, nor interested in recreating it – it's rather a matter of principle to me. Thanks & regards, PanchoS (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . SALTing can be useful for bad repeatedly created pages, yes, but policy has no prohibition against pre-emptive SALTing before recreation of obviously unacceptable titles. This title is so extreme in negative implied defining fact that no Wikipedian should think it reasonable to create it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The category's CfD shows a consensus to salt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection of United Kingdom general election, 2015
I can fully understand the need to protect United Kingdom general election, 2015 at the moment. However, I am concerned about the state it has been left in while protected. The reason for the slow edit war was that some editors were intent on changing it even while an RfC was ongoing, while others, myself included, argued that such changes should be reverted precisely because they were made during the RfC, and that allowing the changes made during the RfC was allowing those who abuse the RfC process to succeed in the aim of their abuse of the process. By protecting it in the state it is, you are accidentally allowing those who abuse the RfC process to succeed in the aim of their abuse of the process, while the more restrained editors like myself and Bondegezo who have reverted such abusive changes are finding that our self-restraint in not reverting such changes immediately has led to the page being frozen in the state left by those who abuse the process and add to that abuse with quick reverts. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Underlinked tags
Hello Tim. Please could you stop adding the underlinked tags to the Swiss referendum articles. They have well over a hundred links on each article. Thanks, Number   5  7  18:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

clean up using AWB
Hi, today you made a large number of edits, giving the edit summary "clean up using AWB". Most of these consisted solely of the bypassing of a working redirect, which not only goes against WP:NOTBROKEN, it also violates WP:AWB, item 4 "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." Please be careful that you do not continue making edits like these. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Hello T. I thought you should know that you placed an indefinite full protection here. It could have been removed within an hour of your protecting it so, when you have a chance, please open up the article for editing again. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick response! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad reference info
Please check your edits before saving, see. The author is not "12:00 AM, 21 July 2010", and the publisher is not Radio Times - that is the publication. There is a huge difference. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories
There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion - Implementation
Hi Tim,

Thanks for implementing the Rivers categories currently listed at WP:CFDW. For info, Cydebot is working again, see User talk:Cyde – currently being tested manually on its new host, and should be started up for automated use shortly, perhaps later today. Meanwhile, if you have the time and inclination, don't let me stop you! – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a message
... for you here Pwolit iets (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Enterprise Software
Hi,

Just curious to find out what happened to Category:Enterprise Software.

On 19 September 2016 you deleted this category which I created in error after seeing someone had tried to create it in several articles. When I realized that a similar category (capitalized correctly) already existed I emptied the category I created thinking that categories which are empty are deleted after a couple of days. I was surprised though to see that you deleted it with a raionale of: R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: redirects to self. Just curious to find out why you thought it was a redirect. Thanks in advance for replying on my talk-page. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * @Ottawahitech An interim edit had made it a category redirect but it was targetted at itself so it was only going to loop on itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Doctor who - Mission the unkown
If you watch this reconstruction of the episode you will see it does have surving clips:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bqsns_mission-to-the-unknown-mission-to-the-unknown-reconstruction_shortfilms

Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Scenarioschrijver20


 * That's original research and you have provided no source they're from the original Mission. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello T. On the off chance that you haven't seen it already I wanted to let you know that S did start a thread on the talk page Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes. Cheers and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mrs. Bill Clinton listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mrs. Bill Clinton. Since you had some involvement with the Mrs. Bill Clinton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 14:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Bill Clinton listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mrs Bill Clinton. Since you had some involvement with the Mrs Bill Clinton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Protection of Mike Hookem
Hi Timrollpickering, regarding your protection of Mike Hookem, the extended confirmed protection level is only permitted to be used when semi protection has proven to be ineffective. For this article, it appears that semi protection would be ideal. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

When you have a moment
Hello T. I noticed the category changes like this one that you are making. When you have a sec would you please turn the new cat blue. It is red at the moment and I am afraid that other editors will start removing it because of that fact. In fact a look at the CFD in question Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6 shows that several of the new cats are still red so you might take care of those as well. If there is a bot, or another editor, that is supposed to do these then that is fine. Thanks for your time and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules on controversial edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal

Reasons[edit source] Shortcut: WP:RVREASONS There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reversing a speedy category move
I notice that Category:VFL/AFL players was speedily moved (being unopposed). I was too late, of course - I oppose the move because the new name is highly anachronistic: pre-1990 players are never referred to as AFL players. The move should not have been done through WP:CFDS but through WP:CFD, and WikiProject Australian rules football should have been informed. Anyway, what do I do now? Do I need to go back and do a new nomination from scratch at CfD. Is there any provision to speedily move it back so there can be further discussion? StAnselm (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's best to relist it at Speedy with the rationale. Moving the category backwards & forwards mid discussion can be tricky and currently the cat bot is in the middle of probably the single biggest set of cat moves I've ever seen. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. But there doesn't seem to be a particular speedy criterion that applies. Does that matter? StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just state you're seeking to reverse a move that's just been made. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Koizumi
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your objection to the Koizumi move. The only allowable spellings per MOS:JAPAN would be "Jun'ichirō" (full diacritics) or "Junichiro" (none). Articles about Japanese politicians tend to favour diacritics (currect PM Shinzō Abe, recent PM Tarō Asō, and Koizumi's with the macron). Having only the one diacritic would be an exceptional situation indeed (I'm not aware of any such examples). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of the articles appear to have been moved back and forth over the years. A discussion is better than yet another arbitrary move. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An "arbitrary move" might be to move the article from one with diacritics to one without, or vice versa. That's not the case here—the current title is disallowed by MOS:JAPAN unless it can be shown to be the WP:COMMONNAME, which is extremely unlikely and would be extremely unusual. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Main Page
Hey, I just reverted your change of the content model of the Main Page. It was making everything show up as code. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 02:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Main page edit?
What did you do in this edit? . --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This account has been globally locked. — xaosflux  Talk 03:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The user needs to contact stewards or admins they know privately, this seems to be part of an ongoing hack of admins with weak passwords.-- Stemoc 03:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not know any privately; how am I supposed to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs)

Jan Merlin : actor/author
Jan Merlin also appeared in an episode of the television western series named "Laramie" star's John Smith, Robert Fuller in recurring roll's. Jan Merlin appeared in Episode: 111 in 1963 as a suspected robber who shot and left for dead the main character "Slim" and when found coming into town on Slim's horse to "visit his sister and report Slim bushwacked him" was quickly arrested using the location where Slim lay shot as bargain chip to be set free or wouldnt talk otherwise. Merlin had a great smile and made you hate him on screen, a great job of acting as the bad apple you want to grab through the screen and take your dislike of what he has done. Out on him yourself. He deserves more credit as a great actor than he has been given. He might have been so good at being or acting as a bad guy, directors might have not used him as much convinced he really was a bad apple. I think he's a living HERO We ALL should honor and give a special award to for his service as an American in our NAVY in World War ll and Work done we saw and see still in our living rooms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.114.138 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

R from legal name
Could you explain why you were opposed to moving R from personal name to R from legal name? -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To match the category reversion - both moves had had no discussion and the redirects in the category had not been moved over. Timrollpickering 17:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the category was populated via a template, it takes a while for the category to "catch up", and they were in the process of being moved over... Do you actually have a reason for reverting? I was going by WP:BOLD, no discussion is needed for bold moves unless there really is an objection. -- Tavix ( talk ) 06:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fairly easy to update a template populated category with null edits. The move also confused me as the terms aren't synonymous - a look at the article talk pages shows a lot of confusion. Timrollpickering 20:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sidney Olivier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sidney Olivier 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/Sidney Olivier until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Unknown Prime Minister listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unknown Prime Minister. Since you had some involvement with the Unknown Prime Minister redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 01:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Stoney Cove
Stoney Cove is a working diver training location, as well as an inland venue used by recreational divers to train and practise skills. It simply cannot be considered a "tourist attraction", so please don't edit-war to categorise it as that. I've started a discussion at Talk:Stoney Cove, where you would be welcome to present any evidence that you have that tourists are attracted to the site. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The category has been renamed and the old one turned into a redirect so the article can't sit there. Moving articles from redirected categories to the target is standard and will be continued (not least when the bot comes to that one again). Simply undoing these edits is unproductive - if you feel the article shouldn't be in the category at all why aren't you simply removing it? Timrollpickering 17:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm simply reverting an inappropriate edit - you're the one placing the article in a category where it doesn't belong. If you don't want the article in a category which is appropriate, then feel free to take it out yourself. It's slightly less damaging to the encyclopedia that what you've been doing. But please don't edit-war; the discussion is open on the talk page and attempting to force your preferred version of reality into the article without engaging on the talk page will likely end badly for you. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try understanding how CFD and category redirects work rather than shouting edit war. Having an article in a category redirect is not appropriate at all and, once the redirect is old enough, you'll soon have a bot moving it over every day it's put in there. I have no horse in the content argument but am merely tidying up after processing it. If you're so determined to keep the article out of the tourist attractions category why don't you just remove it altogether instead of putting it in the redirect? Timrollpickering 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly well how category redirects work, and thank you for your patronising; it's a really endearing quality. How about you trying to understand what is an appropriate category for an article? From the view of the article, the category Category:Visitor attractions in Leicestershire is appropriate; the category Category:Tourist attractions in Leicestershire is not. No amount of blathering about CFD makes any difference to that fact and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Content >> maintenance. Don't edit war, and don't mark your contentious reversions as 'minor' - you've been around long enough to know how inappropriate that is. If you're so determined to keep the article out of the visitor attractions category why don't you just remove it altogether instead of putting it in a category where it doesn't belong? --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try understanding how CFD and category redirects work rather than shouting edit war. Having an article in a category redirect is not appropriate at all and, once the redirect is old enough, you'll soon have a bot moving it over every day it's put in there. I have no horse in the content argument but am merely tidying up after processing it. If you're so determined to keep the article out of the tourist attractions category why don't you just remove it altogether instead of putting it in the redirect? Timrollpickering 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly well how category redirects work, and thank you for your patronising; it's a really endearing quality. How about you trying to understand what is an appropriate category for an article? From the view of the article, the category Category:Visitor attractions in Leicestershire is appropriate; the category Category:Tourist attractions in Leicestershire is not. No amount of blathering about CFD makes any difference to that fact and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Content >> maintenance. Don't edit war, and don't mark your contentious reversions as 'minor' - you've been around long enough to know how inappropriate that is. If you're so determined to keep the article out of the visitor attractions category why don't you just remove it altogether instead of putting it in a category where it doesn't belong? --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly well how category redirects work, and thank you for your patronising; it's a really endearing quality. How about you trying to understand what is an appropriate category for an article? From the view of the article, the category Category:Visitor attractions in Leicestershire is appropriate; the category Category:Tourist attractions in Leicestershire is not. No amount of blathering about CFD makes any difference to that fact and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Content >> maintenance. Don't edit war, and don't mark your contentious reversions as 'minor' - you've been around long enough to know how inappropriate that is. If you're so determined to keep the article out of the visitor attractions category why don't you just remove it altogether instead of putting it in a category where it doesn't belong? --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Politics of the Republic of China
Can you re-propose the title move? The current name has been used since 2005, eleven years ago. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What is going on with this article?
Hi Timrollpickering, there is a new page called China (cultural region), but seems to not get any attention. It has a tag on top says "It has been suggested that China be merged into this article". It is a soft redirect. Its talk page Talk:China (cultural region) has a discussion going, but it is not getting much awareness (whereas more people are involved in the discussion). I was wondering if you can gave some insights on this. Is there any way you think more people can get involved in the discussion of Talk:China (cultural region)? Does it need discussion and more attention? It seems like no one know this page even exists. What shall be done about this page?--Sevilledade (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably best to simply delete it. The talkpage comments suggest this is an attempt at a backdoor way to recreate the pre 2011 POVFORK mess where Wikipedia structured the articles as though it was the 1950s US State Department. Timrollpickering 01:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:R from legal name listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from legal name. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from legal name redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB overwriting articles
Hi Timrollpickering. This was most likely an accident, but it looks like when you used AWB for this edit on Damon Tassos, you overwrote the entire article with content from Ben Tate. I took a peek at your contribution history, and it looks like the same thing happened to Willie Ellison: AWB overwrote it with content from Luther Elliss. I've reverted both instances and wanted to let you know. I'm not entirely sure what happened, so do you think you could take a look at your AWB settings? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Odd - those were set up as null edits to clear through a large redirected category populated by a template. There shouldn't have been any content change but it seems AWB slipped a groove. I'll have a look to see what could have caused that. Timrollpickering 12:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)