This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cuchullain. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint-Lambert station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax. 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.
Planet of the Apes (video game), an article you nominated for GA, has been reviewed again
Hello Cuchullain,
As per your request, the nomination was taken down. Although the article doesn't meet standards now, you can improve it and re-nominate it again. Suggestions on how have been made on the review. Manfred (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Useddenim, well, I didn't move those, I just nominated them to be moved and the consensus was for the names I proposed. I re-read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) when I proposed them, and it doesn't actually say to use that rather odd mid-phrase disambiguation. In fact, I find no actual guideline or consensus discussion that explains why that's done for some British stations. I've been told that style is used only when "that's how Network Rail styles those particular ambiguous station names when they conflict with other UK stations".[2] That clearly isn't the case with either of these stations that closed decades ago (and in fact, the Network Rail format would probably use towns or counties rather than (Scotland). Due to all that, the articles should be moved back, and perhaps it's worth a discussion to add some material on when and why disambiguation is added in the middle of the title in some cases.--Cúchullaint/c13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest this: (1) we move these two stations back, as they've actually been through an RM that ended with the previous title, and (2) opening a new multi-move discussion with these and other relevant examples, informing TWP and other interested parties, and trying to hammer out some consistency.--Cúchullaint/c14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
A few years ago all of the Scotland railway station titles were synchronized, so there’s evidently been some “page creep”. I would caution you, though, that a new multi-move discussion will probably be seen by WP:UKT as yet another attempt by Dicklyonet al. to impose their opinion onto the project. Useddenim (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Useddenim Yes, I'm aware of how finicky train editors can be with these articles. Unfortunately, there's no avoiding the discussion now, since there's no consistency, even within articles that use mid-phrase parentheses (the above articles' edit histories suggests there never has been), and there's nothing we can point to to say why things should be one way or another. This is a problem when local projects start using an unwritten convention, especially when it doesn't jibe with the site-wide practice. Hopefully it will be take for what it is - an attempt to fix an issue.
If I don't get to start the discussion today, it'll probably be next week. I'll make sure to notify you and the relevant projects.--Cúchullaint/c14:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the ping. I agree that we need to get some conventions sorted out once and for all on this. As Cuchullain mentions above, my opinion (and I think the rule that was applied when most of these titles were set up) is that we should use the middle of the title disambiguator where Network Rail (or British Rail for defunct stations) do or did so, for example Sutton (Surrey) railway station; but that we should use a normal end of title disambiguator where there is no such NR disambiguator, for example Georgetown railway station (Scotland). Note that the infix disambiguators are those used by National Rail, which may differ from the locality disambiguator we would normally use if we were applying WP:UKPLACE - for example Sutton is usually denoted by its ceremonial county (London) rather than by its historical county of Surrey, but since National Rail call it "Sutton (Surrey)", so do we. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. All that makes sense and it would probably be easy to add the clarification to WP:UKSTATION when we determine consensus. Unfortunately, I'm going to be out most of the rest of the week, so I'll wait till next week to get going. One more thing: should Houston (Scotland) railway station be moved back, since Georgetown has been?--Cúchullaint/c17:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim: wrote: "a new multi-move discussion will probably be seen by WP:UKT as yet another attempt by Dicklyon et al. to impose their opinion onto the project." That's funny; I had nothing to do with this; consistency and conventions are not really my thing, so much as minor style items of capitalization and punctuation. I would think the project would be generally in favor of consistent naming conventions, but if they're not, it's not me that will be arguing with them. But thanks for dragging me into this. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
First off, I also posted this question at the help desk, but thought I would also personally notify you, as you have experience with the same issue/volunteer. Recently I had an RFC which was closed (inappropriately I feel) by user:WingedBladesOfGodric. When I went to his page and asked (very politely I might add) for an explanation, I was at first told "No - I see no need". Upon further inquiry, he agreed to explain the reason for his closure, and then promptly disregarded his commitment to do so. Further entreaties were met with radio silence. Here is a link to said discussion - My apologies for bothering you on your page, but how in the world do I find a reason for the closure to the RFC?? 2600:1012:B068:9A8C:51CA:D45C:30DF:BD0E (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Move the dab page to Travis Knight (disambiguation), and make sure to uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" box (if you can't do that, move and add the{{db-redirect}} template to the redirect, or I can delete it for you).
Move the article to the base name.
Place the WP:G6 deletion template on the dab page (uncontroversial deletion of a dab page with only one other entry). The template is here: {{db-g6|rationale=The reason for deletion}}.
Thankyoubaby, thanks for your comment. My moves are coming due to the new WP:CANSTATION guidelines. Before moving I did a quick search, and of the ones I checked, "xxx LRT Station" was not more common in Google News search than just "Xxx station". For example, Churchill ([3]) vs. [4]), Clareview ([5] vs. [6]) and Grandin ([7] vs. [8]). As such I thought it best to move them to the names more in line with the guideline.--Cúchullaint/c13:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't find that to be an accurate measurement of common usage. Looking at Clareview for example, several of the articles that came up were about an incident that happened on "Clareview Station Drive". I could also cherry pick stations where XXX LRT Station comes up as more common than XXX Station (South Campus, McKernan/Belgravia). Looking at the discussion on WP:CANSTATION, I see you have not reached a consensus on the GO station names. I believe the Edmonton LRT stations fall into the same category, these are proper, offical and common names. If Churchill LRT Station is the name of the station (http://www.metronews.ca/content/dam/thestar/uploads/2016/8/28/edmonton-transit-churchill-entrance.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo.jpg), it's the name of the station. Thankyoubaby (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are (some) cases where "Xxx LRT Station" is more common in Google News results, but it's not consistent across all of them, and it appears that in most cases, either "Xxx station" is more common, or there's no one way that's clearly the most common between "Xxx LRT station", "Xxx station", just "Xxx", or something else. In those cases, it seems best to default to the standard convention of the guideline, which is "Xxx station". You are correct that it appears there's no consensus on what to do with the GO stations, which is something we'll have to sort out, but in those cases the gap is pretty narrow. We can take the Edmonton discussion up more widely, but as I've already started moving them, I'm going to continue and if there's consensus for putting them back, we can do it then.--Cúchullaint/c14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, either would work, but I felt (Calgary) was more recognizable than (CTrain), and in the discussion about Edmonton stations, those who favored parenthetical disambiguation tended to prefer just (Edmonton).--Cúchullaint/c14:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Salmo railway station
This building's notability derives in large part from it once being a railway station. Why have you changed it to "Salmo station"? Britmax (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi - was wondering if you could help arbitrate a dispute on the Holy Grail article? I am trying to remove a couple non-sensical, totally irrelevant sentences from the article, but user DonQuixote keeps undoing my edit (now to the point of an edit war). The sentences in question are: "The arrival of the Grail in Britain may stem from the introduction of Christianity there. Though the Anglo-Saxons were Christianized by the 6th and 7th centuries, this was not the case with the Normans who at the time of the Grail would have still been close to heathendom." Both sentences cite a non-scholarly, fringe book by Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz - neither of whom are Arthurian scholars, but Jungian analysts. The former heathendom of the Anglo-Saxons and Normans is utterly irrelevant to the article, as no scholars believe that the Anglo-Saxons are responsible for the development of the Holy Grail motif in medieval Arthurian literature and, while the Normans were certainly involved in its spread, the Normans who did so were thoroughly Christianized - and had been so for hundreds of years by the time Chretien de Troyes (who was neither Norman, nor Anglo-Saxon) wrote the very first romance mentioning the Holy Grail. In fact, the scholarly consensus is that Chretien, while likely influenced by earlier Celtic fairytales of magical vessels, invented the Holy Grail (as it appears in his story) himself. The sentence "(t)he arrival of the Grail in Britain may stem from the introduction of Christianity there" makes ZERO sense, as the Holy Grail is unknown in Britain until manuscripts of Chretien's Grail romance were brought there in the late 12th century. Any assistance you can provide here is most welcome. Cagwinn (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
You are a respected admin with over a decade of Wikipedia experience and you think its a good idea to go to a highly visible article patrolled by an active Wikipedia project and overturn a naming consensus (albeit not a widely discussed one) dating back to 2007 without any discussion? Really?!? I don't care how the name ends up, but that is not appropriate decorum. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Indrian: If there's ever been a move discussion about this article, I did not see it when I searched the archives prior to moving. It seemed the last move was done unilaterally without discussion, and the justification given wasn't very on point. I saw no particular reason to think the move would be controversial; it seemed pretty clear cut that the common name for the subject is "Video game crash of 1983" and not "North American video game crash of 1983" - it gets several times the hits on Google Books, News and Scholar. Nor is the fact that the article is (fairly) visible or patrolled by a WikiProject a reason not to go forward with a routine change. However, if others disagree I'm happy for it to go through an RM discussion.--Cúchullaint/c18:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Like I said it was not much of a discussion (I did not take part in it), but it was changed after some users objected to the old name as implying a worldwide event. There was not a formal proposal to my knowledge, for as you know things were a bit more Wild West back then. You are certainly correct that the event is usually just referred to as a general crash, but I would have to conduct a review of more modern scholarship to make sure that this preference is not changing today before deciding how I would weigh in on the name. I have started a discussion on the move at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983_name in which I would invite you to participate. As I said, I have no real stake in how this comes out and bear no animus on a name change; I just feel it should be discussed first. Indrian (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I responded there as well, and reverted your move - not because the name change itself is a problem, but because you did it through cut and paste, which obscures the article history and is necessary for attribution. As I said, I'm happy to put it back and go through RM if others object (I really didn't anticipate that it would be controversial, otherwise I would have just started the RM initially).--Cúchullaint/c18:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Regarding your comment at Talk:Menorca for the page move Rfc, your heart was in the right place because you tried to back up your intuition with data, but unfortunately you got a bit bamboozled trying to construct the right search query and interpret the results, and ended up with the conclusion that " 'Menorca' is about twice as common in Google Books results from the 21st century. " If anything, the opposite is the case, in line with your original intuition about this. (And that search isn't the final word, either; although this case seems like a dead letter, and I don't really care, because either is okay.)
One of these days I'm going to write an essay about how to use search counts properly. As has been pointed out before,[where?][I can't remember!] the google search counts are estimates, you can get 400 hits as a result count, and then forward through the pages, and see that the true count is only half that, or a quarter. Beyond that, people don't understand how to compare apples with apples. Please take great care when using search counts, especially when it affects your Rfc !vote. Feel free to ping me on my talk page if a particular case comes up in the future that you need some data for, and would like to discuss it. Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Mathglot: I've been involved in the RM process (it was an RM, not an RfC) for a long time now and am well versed in using Google returns, thanks. Some of what you say is accurate, but much isn't. For one thing, as we clarified in later discussion, Ngram only searches through books up to 2008. Considering that much of the shift from "Minorca" to "Menorca" apparently has happened in 21st century sources, Ngram's picture is out of date by 9 years. Please don't use that as an example of something people should be looking at in cases like these!
There are flaws in any system, and Google is no different. However, it can give a picture of whether something is more common, especially when you scroll through the later pages, and try multiple searches with associated terms, which we did in this case when asked. Additionally, it supported the fact that looking directly at sources, as In ictu oculi did in the nominating summary, shows a shift toward the "Menorca" spelling. The only evidence provided that suggested that "Minorca" remains more common was Ngram, and in the second RM, some tailored searches that were more flawed than even general Google Books searches. All put together, these searches give a much clearer picture than looking at something as out of date as the Ngram viewer.
If you do write an essay about how to better use Google results, please take great care that the advice you give is accurate and relevant, or it will just cause more confusion than it could hope to resolve. Such an essay would also benefit by striking a less patronizing tone than you have here ;).--Cúchullaint/c17:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe what you say about the shift towards 'Menorca' is true, and it's also true about the ngram data being nine years in arrears hurts that interpretation and I don't know a good workaround for that currently. At the same time it's also true that the referenced searches were or could have been misleading to many obervers (or !voters) especially in light of the ngram search even if it ended in 2008. The question is, whether the trend or shift towards Menorca is great enough to support the move, whether something especially interesting has happened since 2008, and whether the additional data from web and print sources such as the news sources provided outweighs the other data. Maybe it does, and if those sources are given greater weight, then the move was correct. But I don't believe that people had the correct data in hand at the time the decisoin was made, to make an informed decision.
I apologize if I sounded patronizing, I was making a genuine offer and didn't know your background, as I see misinterpretation of search results more the rule than the exception, and may have misread your background. I probably won't get around to doing an essay, but if I do, I'll make every effort to make it accurate and relevant. Having worked for three search engines, I'm reasonably well placed to avoid the pitfalls that abound in interpreting search results, although I don't work for one now, and things can change quickly in this domain. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Mathglot: No worries, and I do understand where you're coming from. The tools we've got are flawed and easy to misuse. Ngram is probably the least flawed in a lot of ways, but when it comes to cases like these, I don't think there's any solution to the problem of it being out of date unless Google adds post-2008 books. What I've taken to doing with Google Books searches is just giving the links rather than the number of results, so folks can click through later pages of results and see if there's really a pattern. What really convinced me was Google News. There does appear to have been a noticeable shift for publications to use "Menorca", and news publications tend to be more responsive to trends than books. That can be seen either on Google News or looking at actual publications. Other than Ngram, I wasn't able to find any evidence that "Minorca" is more common now, hence my preference for the move.
However, it's obvious folks have more to say about this, and there are multiple ways to interpret the evidence, so given the fact that the RM had low participation it is totally reasonable that the closer reopen it. It appears they would have been entirely amenable if they'd ever been approached, but unfortunately, someone decided to open a new RM instead, leading to the present confusion and limbo. Hopefully, the MR will close sooner rather than later and you and others will be able to add your input to the discussion.--Cúchullaint/c13:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to say well done on a brave but good close. I'm sure there'll be some flak heading your way, so thought some praise would also be in order. Cheers, Number5718:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Timeline of Lumbee history requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lumbeetribe.com/timeline. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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 "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. PureRED (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Hi Korean Rail Fan: I don't recall moving the article, and it appears to have been in error. WP:CANSTATION applies only to stations in Canada. Either "Central Terminal station" or "Central Terminal LRT station" would be acceptable as titles. If you disagree with the current title, feel free to open an WP:RM.--Cúchullaint/c19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.
Hey, I noticed that you reverted my changes to The Wind Waker. The sales information in that article is badly outdated (those "last reported numbers" are from 2004), and Aonuma's offhand mention that the game reached 1 million sales in the United States is not a definitive statement about its total sales figures—it's just an aside. The figures I added, which are from July 2006, offer a much more accurate picture of the game's sales in the United States. They were published by the Edge affiliate Next Generation, a highly reliable source. I understand the concern about getting things right, but there's simply no reason not to update the article with them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing: Sorry for the delay. I reverted your edit with the intention of working some of your material back in, but there were problems with some of your changes. First, the reference to Aonuma's statements about sales slowing down is important to establish the fact that sales in North America were much more sluggish than hoped for. This is an important part of the history of the game and series, and is back up by many of the other reliable sources. It can probably be reworded, but removing it entirely no longer conveyed the fact that the game's sales were disappointing in North America as well as Japan. As for the 2004 sales figures, I didn't add the figures from Nintendo, but they were the most up to date ones I could find from a reliable source. At any rate, it was odd to include 2006 North American figures before 2004 world figures. I also worried that the addition, combined with the removal of the previous sentence, gave the incorrect impression that sales were strong in North America, even though the rest of the article (and paragraph) indicate that they were not. Now that I have some time, I'll try working the source back in.--Cúchullaint/c15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Bobby Martnen sock
FYI Academicoffee71 (still unblocked) has just created a BLP Krzysztof Wojciechowski presumably as another personal shot at a senior Polish Wikipedian. There is no way that this sock is Kauffner, he would never stoop to this sort of behaviour. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cuchullain. While I admit that the discussion has been meandering, I think we had a working consensus at Talk:Jesuit Garden: have a dab page at the base title (as the small park in Beirut is not the primary topic) and move the current one to Jesuits Garden (Beirut). I even meant to implement it myself, but didn't feel necessary to be in rush. WP:BURO notwithstanding, would you please reconsider your close? No such user (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne 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. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
"while several people suggested merging with the article Race and crime in the United States, others opposed this on solid grounds" – Diffs please.
On second thought, please just remove the merge-related material from the close. It's out-of-scope for an RM closure. Some competing and incompletely formulated merge ideas mentioned on the side can't be used to declare a generalized consensus against merging. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha, which is it, is a merge the correct outcome, or is an entirely unacceptable outcome? At any rate I expanded the close a bit to explain why none of the suggestion options are being carried out. I left in the discussion of the merge options so that it doesn't appear as if the suggestions of several editors are being ignored entirely simply because the discussion venue was not technically the right one. Note that a finding of no consensus to merge is not the same as a consensus against merging.--Cúchullaint/c13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Bizarre edit summary
This edit summary is bizarre. I presume you are referring to how different wiki-editors are storing characters rather than the characters themselves? I have no control over what the editor saves and if you consider something the WMF software does for WYSIWYG as "changing other peoples comments" please file a bug with WMF. It's not something I can do anything about and it's plainly obvious that only a machine or program would have made the alteration. I certainly didn't edit anyone's comments to replace ansi or iso or any other standard the wikieditor prefers. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
It's even weirder that Cu's edit deleted your entire comment as well, which it the ultimate in changing others' posts. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
DHeyward: I reverted your edit because you added a non-breaking space to another user's comment in the above, closed section, which was unnecessary and pointless. I frankly hadn't noticed that you had made a comment of your own as well, but after reading it now I'm disappointed that it was both off topic and insulted other editors. Your comment is a blatant violation of the talk page guidelines and so is subject to removal or archiving in its own right. You've been blocked repeatedly for doing exactly this kind of thing at Gamergate topics before, so it's not as if you're unaware of the problem. I hope you will avoid making any such comments in the future, or else it's going to be a matter for ANI and/or WP:AE.--Cúchullaint/c14:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
No. I did not add a "non-breaking space." That was the editor from WMF that replaced whatever space was there to the specific HTML code. Try thinking: why would someone add the code for that? Second, your characterization of my blocks are unwarranted and false aspersions. None of my block stood scrutiny and were reversed. Your current aspersions included. Lastly, it was not not insulting of anyone but you completed the picture by attacking me instead of admitting you made an error. --DHeyward (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Your edit here added a non-breaking space. That is what I intended to revert, because it was pointless and unnecessary.
It's quite disappointing that you're digging your heels in defending your comment, which is inappropriate on its face, and that you're trying to pass blame for your previous blocks on others. I repeat: do not go off on tangents unrelated to article improvements, at this or any other article, and do not insult other editors as you did in that comment.--Cúchullaint/c16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
No, my edit did nothing of the sort. That was an artifact of the editor. I did not add HTML code to change one space to another (for what purpose would any human being do that?}. Just like the editor convert tildes to signatures, it must have had a problem with storing that space and added markup code. Second, My blocks were overturned on review as being wrong and unwarranted. Raising them as somehow relevant here is rather unseemly and speaks more about your grasp of the bit rather than my edit. --DHeyward (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC).
Your edit introduced the non-breaking space. If you didn't intend it or it was a software issue as you claim, there's nothing to get worked up about.
You can make excuses all you want, but the fact remains that your comment was off topic and insulted other editors. Avoid that in the future, and you won't face any more such problems.--Cúchullaint/c14:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Ezhiki: Thanks for that, but if there are no other uses even mentioned on Wikipedia, there's no need for a set index either, especially since it was specifically decided in the RM discussion that the set index should be done away with. Set indexes are used for related articles with similar names, not for unrelated towns that happen to have the same name. I understand that this is a wider problem with Russian articles, but this isn't the way to clear it up.--Cúchullaint/c20:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a consensus that having set indices on Russian populated places (regardless of the color of the links) is helpful, with Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia containing nearly 2,000 entries, some of which went through AfDs and were kept. The consensus in this RM is that having a set index is unnecessary if a largely duplicative disambiguation page is in place, but if that page is deleted as non-viable, there is nothing wrong with having a set index that replaces it (the point I've been making all along). If you look closely at this dab's history, you'll see that a very recent speedy has been denied because "the page can be saved as a SIA" (but not as a dab). In all, just because an RM consensus is unenforceable, it doesn't mean we should do away with a perfectly encyclopedic set of information. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 3, 2017; 20:44 (UTC)
P.S. As a side note, "unrelated towns that happen to have the same name" are not that different from "unrelated people that happen to have the same name", and no one is rushing to delete set indices on last and first names. Toponymy and anthroponymy are equally viable encyclopedic topics where having set indices is incredibly helpful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 3, 2017; 20:48 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's really not encyclopedic to list a bunch of links to articles that don't exist and aren't mentioned anywhere. Converting things to set indexes, which in this case is effectively just a dab page that doesn't follow MOS:DAB, is just preserving a pointless list for no discernible benefit. Admittedly, this is a problem across the spectrum in Russian articles, but the fact that most other countries don't have similar is an indication that the project-wide consensus is against doing things like this.--Cúchullaint/c20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A popular alternative opinion is that it is encyclopedic to list them as they fulfill the gazeteer purpose of Wikipedia. There is no expectation everyone would agree with that reasoning, but that's why we look at the consensus, which in this case is to keep these. Perhaps what is throwing you off is the state of this particular set index, and I assure you, it is very far from an ideal form (for an example of a similar set index that is a bit better developed—and I daresay can't be confused for a dab page—see Alexandrovka, Russia). I have no problem adding coordinates and references to these, by the way, just ask, but one should understand that since Russia is an enormous country, so many things will stay in the work-in-progress stage for years. Doesn't help to get rid of them because of that. Wikipedia is never finished, after all.
As for the "project-wide consensus", it is also a project-wide consensus to leave matters of local geography to specific WikiProjects, which is exactly what's happening here. You might see this as a "pointless list", but I met users who had been very grateful and amazed that these are in place, as they are actually using that information both for research and as a jumping board to contribute to Wikipedia. I wouldn't even bother to keep creating them if not for that feedback! There is plenty of stuff out there that you and me would find completely useless, but it's important to recognize that while it is useless to us it fulfills encyclopedic purpose for someone else. But of course you know that. You've been around for almost as long as I have :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 3, 2017; 21:14 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. While I don't see this as a good use of time, I'll defer to your experience on Russian geography articles and what is of interest to their readers.--Cúchullaint/c21:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gridiron football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gridiron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
