User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 9

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at [[User talk:Richard Harvey (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)|User talk:Richard Harvey (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Out of the Blue (1995 TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Hannah and Peter Wight (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not in the slightest bit relevant -

I think the refs are split between two politicians with the same romaji name. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I asked a question of you on the Emperor Jimmu RM as well. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't consider the subject's official webpage a reliable source and thus not a reference. Dlohcierekim 15:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is currently a stub all a reference needs to do is prove its existence. There are no controversial statements that need to be referenced. Even an official website proves an institution's existence! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		A tear of pride rolls down my cheek when I see the people I nominated for adminship over half a decade ago keeping up the good work. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Houseman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page House officer (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp,
I noticed you removed the UK delsort from a Welsh based Afd - But according to Wales - Wales is in the UK ?, If it was "List of bus stations in England" then I'd do the UK delsort too so I'm absolutely confused?
Thanks, Regards -Davey2010T 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you include an AfD within the England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland delsort lists then it is automatically also included on the UK delsort page and you don't need to include it in the UK list too. The UK delsort list is only for those articles which refer to the whole UK, not specifically to one of the four Home Nations. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh right, Thanks for your help, Regards, -Davey2010T 15:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your recent participation at the deletion discussion for Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Australia). I was wondering if you might not participate in this deletion discussion on a CV recipient? Thanks. EricSerge (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the

You've renamed articles on French awards back to French. Your interpretation of the para above seems to differ completely from mine. I can think of 1 maybe 2 French awards where an anglophone "might" use the French name, the others are and should remain translated into English as per the above WikiProject directive. Fdutil (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to be more specific? Which awards are you referring to? The

WP:COMMONNAME in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Necrothesp. I see you were puzzled by the outcome of your move of this page, which I agree with, and I have tried to make sense of it here. I think it may be because you're an admin that you may have merged the two page histories accidentally? In any event, all's well that ends well, but could you possibly keep this page on your watch-list? Moonraker (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Frankly, I'm mystified. That has never happened to me before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I half understand it. If I go to move a page, the move usually succeeds, so long as the new page name doesn't exist already or else so long as the new name exists but only as a redirect with a simple history ("moved over redirect"). If the new name is an existing redirect with a longer history, the system doesn't allow my move, and I get a message telling me I need to use the formal page-move process, which I believe needs an admin to close it. I think that's because of the need to preserve the page history of the redirect. In this case, when you moved my new page you merged the two page histories, and I am guessing that this happens automatically. What I don't understand is that the outcome of your move was a redirect to Old Royal Naval College, so that you then had to do something to reinstate the content of the new page you were moving. I notice also that Talk:Royal Naval College (Greenwich) (which I created a few days ago) and Talk:Royal Naval College, Greenwich, which was a survival from the previous article, were both unaffected. Somehow the programming of the site seems to have decided to leave them unmerged. Moonraker (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Miniapolis 17:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information
   , broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The
   standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
   for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at your sneers at me here. You have absolutely no business speaking about me, my real life, or what I had better do in it. The page is for discussing the proposed deletion of an article, not for you to vent your spleen. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Oh good, yet another Wikipedia editor with no sense of humour. I was neither sneering nor venting my spleen nor personalising anything (you did that, in actual fact). I was merely making a humorous comment about the idea that someone would jump at a comment in an AfD discussion. Try not to take life too seriously! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just raised a question on why you keep moving

The problem being the correct names Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment etc are all redirects. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt service, appreciate that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Downton Abbey characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kitchen maid (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before marking a change as "British English", and thereby implying that the previous form was wrong, you might care to check recognised authorities. The OED under "saint" A.1. states: "Commonly abbreviated S. or St. (see below)". Lower down it discusses S. and St. along with the plurals SS. and Sts. all with their full stops. The whole six columns consistently uses a full stop both for saints (St. Augustine) and in combination (St. Bruno's lily). Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it is common practice to use the commonest British English form without the full stop for "St" and always has been, as you will see if you take a look at an appropriate category. Most British editors will change these for reasons of consistency. So before you suggest I check "recognised authorities", you may care to check recognised practice on Wikipedia. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you're upset, it was not your interpretation of Wiki's rules I was commenting (you are after all senior in edit count and rank) on but the dismissive "British English". Perhaps "Wikipedia standard" might be slightly friendlier? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my thinking, modern British English does deprecate the use of full stops in abbreviations, while American English does not. It does help if Wikipedia is consistent within forms of English, especially in article titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how this sentence is gibberish: "If reliable sources write out a subject's full first and middle names nearly as often as they use initials, prefer the version with the names written in full." It seems to be much clearer than the version you reverted to. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My mistake. I was editing the wrong version. You'd already reverted the gibberish! Now reverted back to your version. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd had a nice conversation with the gibberish creator. It was an issue of them not understanding the intent of the sentence, and also not using proper grammar to convey what they thought was that intent. Hopefully my rewrite fixes that misunderstanding. Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure how the unscrupulous nationality change without verification is the reason for indefinite protection. The page hasn't been protected before. The good IP edit was on May 2012. That should have been on grounds for pending changes, and I'm sure that reviewers can do a good job reviewing this page. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately British/Irish nationality changes are always a problem on Wikipedia, which is why I protected it. Someone gets the bit between their teeth and they'll carry on adding their POV edits endlessly. But I'll unprotect it if you wish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are passionate about this topic. Please see the links and citations to other global uses of this title that are embedded elsewhere in the article. I ask that your near-war of edits be taken to the Talk page where a full and frank discussion can be held without a continual back-and-forth addition/deletion in the article taking place. Thanks, Rr parker (talk)

Trust me, I have no intention of getting into an edit war (and have not done so - two reverts is not an edit war!) with an idiot who deletes what was a perfectly sound introduction and replaces it with his own POV, deleting links in the process, and refuses to listen to any sort of reason. This issue has already been discussed with Lihaas and other editors on Talk:List of spouses of heads of state, where it was clearly determined that this was not the universal title for the spouse of a head of state and should not be presented as such (the RM did not stop him moving the article back to his own title again, incidentally, after criticising the result - this individual likes pushing his own POV). Your edits to the introduction are fine and accurate, but I wonder how long it will be before Lihaas reverts those too. He has already stated that he believes "first spouse" is the universal title for the spouses of heads of state throughout the world. No, the topic is not something I'm particularly passionate about - I just work to make Wikipedia accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Necrothesp. You once edited the page on Anthony Holland (composer) Skidmore edu. Back when their was only one or two Anthony Holland(s) on wikipedia. In particular you edited the musical professors bio page. That whole article has been deleted. I was wondering how to go about asking for or requesting a revsion deletion or an undelete of the article.

It had stood their for years on his musical accolades alone. In fact as time has passed more of his musical numbers were added with out incident or pause.

As soon as mention of his scientific pursuits made way into the article all heck has broken out and the article now stands deleted. A better one may be able to be written from scratch and I would not be opposed to attempt such a thing or even seek out assistence from other editors in such an attempt... To make a good fair distinctivy intellectually contributive article by the wikiGP... All that said I think undoing the delete might be a much better way to go.

Can you offer me or that article any assistence or advice? 1zeroate (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we at least agree that the main reason for the prod was the ambiguous article title, do you know where the appropriate venue might be for possibly discussing what the new page name might look like? I'm afraid the normal process of discussing on talkpage might not work for such a low-traffic page whose traffic is made even lower because of the ambiguous article title. Maybe I'm overthinking, should I just

Not if it's not called that, as it implies an actual title.

Private University of Science and Arts, Aleppo would be more appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debra Searle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MVO (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Gifford

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

what is generally accepted as notable

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

here. Kkj11210 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Michael Gifford

The article Michael Gifford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article does not meet

WP:POLITICIAN

. His position of ambassadorship is not enough to assume notability. There are also no other secondary sources or references noting his reliability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KJtalk here 10:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Dougald McPhail has been nominated for deletion. ||||

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

George Bulman (pilot) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Captain

Stanley Cockerell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Captain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

The best solution was for Intelligence (TV series) to be a disambig for the two TV shows, rather than just sending it back to a general disambig page which has a bunch of things that are not relevant. Enigma^msg 20:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not usually the way we handle disambiguation pages. However, I'm not bothered if you want to do that, but deleting it just allows articles to be misguidedly created at that title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just to get back to you

yeah, I see what I did, sorry. That other dude on my talk page is out to lunch, though.

Notability of Schools and Universities

Hi there. I note you've been participating in several deletion discussions relating to schools and universities. My interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines such as

Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Notability

is that any school or university is by definition notable, provided that there are multiple independent third-party reliable sources, but that in the rare cases that these sources don't exist, the school or university is not notable. How do you see this, please?

talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

My take, following long precedent and consensus, is that only proof of existence is necessary for a secondary school or college to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Cyriel Camiel and Hector Alidor Lesage et al.

Hi Necrothesp,

The articles are, I believe, indeed linked. If you notice, they all reference each other and form part of an apparent family history series. Plus, I believe there is some serious sockpuppetry going on in all of them (if you look at their edit history), and the Afd discussions...Brigade Piron (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects are linked genealogically, but it isn't usual to bundle AfDs together unless they are linked subjectively, which they aren't. These people may have been related, but they operated in completely different fields and the people commenting on the AfDs will generally not be the same people, as people tend to comment on articles in their own areas of interest. Also only two have been properly AfDed. You can't nominate articles for AfD without putting an AfD notice on the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullocks?

Having a bit of joking with you over at the Steve Bullok RM. All good fun! Don'tcha be dissin' on Montana! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello! Good job! Thanks! I'll expand that article. Lkahd (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Dawson dates

Hi. Why did you change the dates? May 1, 1866 is the correct way to say the date...Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In American English it is. In British English articles we use 1 May 1866. This has long been the style on Wikipedia, as it is overwhelmingly the common form in modern British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tasker Watkins

Hi Necrothesp, do you have the rights to revert the vandalism to Tasker Watkins article. Thanks in advance, FruitMonkey (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. A. Senthilvelan

Kindly look into additional details that have been provided. Thanks for your consideration :)
dhiv talk 14:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, he's still not notable. Just a police superintendent doing what a police superintendent does. Nothing makes him particularly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steele's Bayou Expedition

Hi there. I see you added the article "Steele's Bayou Expedition" to the category "Riverine warfare". My concern is that there's no article on Wikipedia called "riverine warfare" (just a redirect to "Brown-water navy"). So the category just sits there without explanation. Should the entire category be changed to "Brown-water navy"? Or maybe something should be added to the lead section of the Brown-water navy article. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the category and to

riverine warfare to be honest, as it's more of a general title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Great! Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged witches

Category:Alleged witches, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penobscot Hall

I had considered simply redirecting the

Penobscot Hall article to University of Maine, but there was no mention of Penobscot Hall (or any other residence facility) at that article, so I didn't think it made a very useful redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Still a useful redirect, as it will alert anyone searching for Penobscot Hall that it's part of the Uni of Maine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removal

Gyanvihar University, hence the removal was invalid. It's not hard to follow the rules and deprod properly. --Nemo 09:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you care to tell me why it wasn't followed? To deprod, one removes the prod. It's quite clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misread, thanks for your last diff. --Nemo 09:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 13:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

art nouveau

Hi Necrothesp, I want to thank you for creating the categories for Art Nouveau artists. They have been needed for awhile now and I'm glad they're now there. Something I would like to talk about though, is the expansion of the original art nouveau category. I noticed you have categorized a lot of pages. I am concerned though that some are not in the art nouveau style. For instance, Ethel Hays art is more in the Art Deco style and Primo Conti would not be considered art nouveau looking at his images on google. I do agree with some of the articles you categorized and am glad to find them. Turn➦ 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have categorised as Art Nouveau only those articles which specified an Art Nouveau style. For instance, Flapper Fanny Says (illustrated by Hays) specifies it is in the Art Nouveau style. Conti's article specifies Art Nouveau as one of his styles. If you don't agree then feel free to remove them. My own interest in the subject is really architecture; I'm much less knowledgeable about and interested in other arts. But when I started going through the categorisation scheme I decided to do a search for Art Nouveau (and associated movements) and categorise anything which specified it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I see. No problem. Sometimes other people attribute things to different subjects and stuff can get crazy. I just didn't want to start editing your work without you knowing (a head's up). Thanks for replying...ps. I like your enthusiasm with categorizing...it's an important kind of work (I like categorizing too) Turn➦ 00:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Hays again, I agree with you. Definitely Art Deco. Clearly a mistake on the part of another editor. I have edited appropriately and removed the categories. The categorisation was a complete mess and needed vastly expanding. Hopefully it's an improvement now. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at

Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Saint Ofelia PROD

I noticed that you removed the PROD from this article but you seem to have no rationale for doing so. There is no evidence that this person ever existed, and there is no saint with this name on the vaticans list of saints. You removed the PROD saying "if", but you really don't know either way. Now we have to play the AFD game and start all over again on an article that is most likely a hoax. Good job. JOJ ^Hutton 12:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prods are only for completely uncontroversial deletion. I have every right to remove one if I don't believe the deletion is uncontroversial. AfD is the best place for proposing article deletion in most cases. I suggest you take your snide remarks elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its only controversial if someone believes that the article should not be deleted, not just because they think it should go to AFD. If you did even a minutes worth of research on the topic instead of doing a "blanket PROD removal" of several articles you would have found out that there is no evidence that this person ever existed, and there is no listing of a Saint Ofelia on the Vatican's list of Saints. That usually equals a hoax article. But you removed the PROD so you either did it without any shred of evidence or proof, or you really believe that this person existed and if you think that then I suggest you say so at the current AFD. Either way, blindly removing PRODS can be disruptive to Wikipedia because you have no way of knowing if the article is true or not which leads to hoax articles being kept that should not be. If you had any doubt, you should have at least looked it up first. That would have been the proper thing to do, even if you think that you had the "right" to remove it.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be aware if you use prods, anyone has the absolute right to remove them for any reason or no reason. I do not do "blanket removals" of prods. I consider each on its own merits. I removed this one because I did not consider it was uncontroversial (that generally means complete rubbish or completely non-notable subjects). You should also be aware that the internet is not the only source - if someone can find a print source then they can add it. I have no opinion either way - I just felt it should be discussed at AfD. I was perfectly entitled to deprod the article and you have no grounds for argument, so please don't try to provoke one. I suggest you get off your high horse and stop suggesting that an experienced editor and administrator is trying to disrupt Wikipedia by wholly legitimate removal of a prod. If it's that much of a hardship to take an article to AfD (it's really not difficult) then I suggest you find some other way to contribute to Wikipedia. It is our main way of getting an article deleted, after all. Prodding is just a supplement to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamea Masjid

I am the author of the article in question

Jamea Masjid. I was also objecting for it to be moved to Jamea Masjid, Preston - the reason as to why a discussion was started. However, your point made it clear to me whereas the others were bringing up matters which were irrelevant. The only greatest objection was from me whereas the rest was in favour of it being moved. So, I am going to undo your edit and would like to thank you for putting things into Perspective. Appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohiss (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You misunderstand. Another editor has opened a move discussion. A move should not now be made until this discussion has been completed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a Hindi Wikipedia page for my English Wikipedia Article - New R. S. J. Public School. Also i want to add map on my page. Can you do it for me or help me in doing so.Pratham 09:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Sander Säde's talk page.
Message added 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sander Säde 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Shridath Ramphal

I was wondering if you would be willing to undo your move and discuss it. I grew up with him regularly in the news, and he was almost invariably referred to as "Shridath Ramphal" (or "Commonwealth Secretary General Sir Shridath Ramphal") with the very occasional "Sir Shridath 'Sonny' Ramphal". I remember seeing an op-ed columnist calling him "Sonny Ramphal" and thinking how strange that looked. He definitely wasn't "Sonny" when he handed me my diploma when I graduated from the University of the West Indies. Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was always called Sir Sonny Ramphal in the British media, where he was also frequently in the news when he was secretary-general. Nobody here would even have known he was called Shridath. But if that's not the case elsewhere then I'll undo it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Richardson, Gerard Van Helden.

Hello, I have been notified you have read my articles on Frank Richardson and Van Helden and made some minor alterations. Thank you for that. Whilst I try to adhere to the correct presentations I recognize you are improving on them and I appreciate the time and effort you have spent. TimothyWF (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of

Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments

Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

School naming convention

Hello there. You just corrected my incorrect renaming of the Basil McFarland page, for which many thanks.

Since you're an expert on Wiki naming conventions, and since I'm most certainly not, I wonder if you can tell me where I might find the Wiki guidelines on the following: if a school, over the course of its history, has been known by a number of names, what is the convention when referring to the school in a Wiki article ?

For example, take Winchester College. It's correct name is Collegium Sanctae Mariae prope Wintoniam, or Collegium Beatae Mariae Wintoniensis prope Winton, which translates into English as St Mary's College, near Winchester, or The College of the Blessed Mary of Winchester, near Winchester. Now, if I'm writing an article about somebody who attended Winchester College in the Fourteenth Century, when it may indeed have been referred to as Collegium Sanctae Mariae prope Wintoniam, do I write "he attended the Collegium Sanctae Mariae prope Wintoniam" ? Or, assuming very few people will today understand what I'm referring to if I do that, do I simply write "he attended Winchester College", even if it was not known by that name at the time he attended it ?

I really would be very grateful for any assistance you can provide here. Very many thanks.

Difficult one. I'd probably use "Winchester College" for reasons of clarity, since I suspect that even in the Middle Ages it was commonly known in English by that title. We usually use the name by which a place or institution was known at the time we're referring to, but given that the official name was in Latin I'd be inclined to use the more understandable name (which isn't really anachronistic). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that. I have a further question therefore. Take Bedford School: before 1552 it was known as Bedford School. However, after it was refounded in 1552, it was often referred to as Bedford Grammar School, being an endowed grammar school. Subsequently, it became known as Bedford School once again, and was generally referred to as Bedford School by the eighteenth century. However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, both names, Bedford School and Bedford Grammar School, were used interchangeably. As a result, in 1917, the Headmaster issued an edict that the school should be referred to exclusively as Bedford School from thenceforth. So, in this case, would it not be sensible to refer to the institution exclusively by one name in Wiki articles rather than by both names, if for no other reason than to avoid confusion ? Thank you enormously for your help here.

I really would be extremely grateful for some guidance here. Thank enormously for your assistance. Much appreciated.

Probably dependant on the sources used for the article which refers to the school. Difficult to lay down hard and fast rules for this one. A redirect will do the job well enough anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks very much indeed.

Please actually read PROD descriptions in full before removing them

If you bothered to read the PROD tag beyond more than a single word, you'd've also seen "fails

WP:GNG

), and there's still in-universe text (the opening for the "Setting" section sounds like it's straight from the book).

Then there's the fact that

instead of acting as an review for the product

.

So maybe you need to go read

WP:NOR while you're at it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm afraid I don't. I'm perfectly aware of what it says. Yes, the article is a bit promotional and in-world, but it is certainly not original research, which is a term thrown around far too much on Wikipedia, and usually inaccurately (generally, I've found it means "I don't like it"!). As you'd also know if you'd bothered to read

WP:PROD, I'm perfectly entitled to remove a prod notice without even bothering to give a reason. The fact I did is a courtesy. Prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. The subject must be non-notable and I think that needs an Afd to determine. Being badly written (which it is) is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

About British British Armed Forces uniforms

Hi, I would just like to say:

Firstly, I didn't understand that the use of the RAF was an example, and fully accept that it could apply to any of the forces;

Secondly, I feel like you

Bit

me a little, to be honest.

Thanks

m8e39 14:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, just gentle sarcasm. The fact it was an example was rather obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This edit of yours was not

WP:CIVIL. We're all on the same team here. A little more courtesy would be appreciated. Thanks. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A little more common sense and knowledge of the subject would also be appreciated. It's too easy to vote delete. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the nom was correct in nominating it, Perhaps he wasn't, I thought your reply was way out of line tho, We all get fucked off on here but we've all just gotta work together :)

Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I largely edit in the field of honours and their recipients and I do find it exceptionally irritating when editors claim that recipients of high honours have no notability, apparently without any understanding of the system. An article should only be nominated for deletion when the nominator actually knows something about the subject; afds shouldn't be opened at the drop of a hat by editors who don't really know what they're talking about. My reply merely expressed disbelief that anyone could consider a dame or knight non-notable! I think many editors would agree with me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamam is not an English dictionary word

It's not in Merriam Webster[1] or Dictionary.com[2]. Hammam, however, is found in both dictionaries so you are incorrect in your assessment as I was in my spelling. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be. However, Hamam is in the Oxford English Dictionary, generally accepted as the bible of English lexicography. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? It is not in their online version [3]. Maybe it is in an older print edition that has been corrected? 24.241.69.99 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's most certainly in the genuine online (and subscription) version of the OED. I'm not talking about the knock-off free version you're looking at. That's not the real OED. Surely you didn't think it was? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not looking very carefully. Published by Oxford University Press Copyright 2014[4]. It is their online dictionary for public usage and Hamam is not in there as I have already linked for you to view[5]. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the OED. Do you understand? The OED is not this! Whether it is published by the OUP or not, it is not the OED! It is a free substitute. Naturally as a free substitute it does not include the full content (which, I can assure you since I do have access to it, does include "hamam"). Understand now? Good grief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provide proof that the current version still contains that term. Not all of us have $300 a year subscriptions to the elite bible of the English language online. A screen shot will do nicely. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm under no obligation to provide proof. Go to a decent library and check it. If you believe I'm lying then I suggest you check out my edit history and my status as an admin and consider very carefully why an anonymous account holder would suggest an established user is not being truthful. This discussion is closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status as an admin has nothing to say about quality of sourcing - and should never be used in a content dispute. That said, I can confirm that OED does list hamam as an alternative spelling of hammam - I have access to the full online version using my local library card (as do most British people). DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the confirmation. DuncanHill And Necrothesp don't assume that an anonymous editor has no Wikipedia account. I edit anonymously to see and confront bigotry against anon editors. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I did assume that. It seems to me that it was you who didn't assume good faith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but status as an admin does suggest that being effectively accused of lying by this anon may be a little irritating! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadors are not inherently notable

A closing admin has clarified there is no policy basis for saying ambassadors are inherently notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Brummell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Owen Snodgrass. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I am challenging his decision. Particularly since Snodgrass was a recipient of the CMG, something you and he appear to have conveniently overlooked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but are you challenging the assertion that ambassadors are 'not' inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That too. Particularly since consensus was clearly to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the policy that says ambassadors are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, it's like a stuck record! You need to look up the word "opinion". Not everything requires a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you admit there is no guideline that makes ambassadors inherently notable? Your argument would be a lot stronger if there was a guideline but to date there has been no consensus for inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is like a stuck record with Libstar. In his world no one else is entitled to an opinion, but he sure is! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Konrad

page deletion process

Hi there, thanks for your message on my talk page about the

John Konrad page deletion. I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the deletion process works, so I went on the #wikipedia-en chat channel on Freenode IRC and asked for help - someone there suggested enabling the Twinkle toolbar and using that, so that's what I did. After you messaged me I received assistance in IRC, the changes were reverted and I had help in resubmitting. Maybe you could take a look at the page again? Thanks. Stroller (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Kt

What justification do you have for removing Kt? You seem to be finding an awful lot of them for something that is "not commonly used"! DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage. The vast, vast majority of the many thousands of knights bachelor on Wikipedia do not have the suffix (take a look at the category) and it is not commonly used as a postnominal. Those that do have have been added in error (often in completely the wrong place) by people who clearly have no understanding of the British honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source! I've often seen it in printed works, especially from Victorian or earlier times. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering your claim that there seem to be an awful lot. The vast majority, however, do not use it. Precisely. It used to be quite common, but it is not now. "Esq" also used to be quite common, but we don't use that either. Degree postnoms still are quite common, but we don't use them. "Kt" is usually deleted by editors who know what they're talking about, not just by me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hey there. Just wanted to give you this. I love your List of last occurrences page. If I can find anything to contribute I certainly will, provided that you're ok with that. HarlandQPitt 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Many thanks for this. Cheers. The page was originally a live page, but it was decided to delete it. I thought I'd preserve it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Christian College

Hey! Saw your message on the Weston Christian College page. I understand that a school closing doesn't take away from it's notability, but I'm curious if you can point me to any Help info that explains why it should remain in place given that there isn't any reference material to back up the school or it's notability. The only refs I was able to find online, for example, point to P.O. Box address refs for Jerry Edwards and pages that mined the wiki page for content. My understanding is that notability requires authoritative references. Thanks! Dnllnd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of online references to prove it existed. That's all that's generally needed for a degree-granting institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. Yes, I understand that there are online references that prove it existed, but they all originated from the school itself. There are no other online references that speak to it being anything more than a P.O. Box. While it's quite possible that there are print resources, somewhere, the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) notability guidelines appear to be pretty clear in saying that "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it". When taken in consideration with the page being idle for several years and there being no concrete means of updaing it, I question the value of the page. Is this really the type of notability that needs preserving? In any event, thank you for the input. Much appreciated. Dnllnd (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RM notice

FYI

 – Pointer to discussion that may be relevant to you.

A requested moves discussion in which you participated in Dec. 2013 has been reopened, at

Talk:Mustang horse#Alternative proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

SP Memorial Institute of Technology

Hey, last time you disagreed with my AfD nomination stating that recognized degree awarding institute are the exception case. Well, I have another problem! Don't worry this time I am not the AfD nominator. You can see the matter

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Ross (British Army officer) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Ross (British Army officer) 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. PatGallacher (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Necrothesp.

I am in possession of a copy of a booklet printed by Sheffield Arts Department to mark the centenary exhibition of John Singer Sargent's "The Misses Vickers". Amongst many interesting facts, the author asserts that this is a portrait in the honourable European tradition of "Aunt Sally" portraits, works which have been howled done at their first showing.

In that context, the painting can be viewed as just as significant as Sargent's "Portait of Madame X" because as the author asserts: "After The Misses Vickers, Sargent's commissioned portraiture rarely plumbed such psychological depths again."

I have added a contempory press review to the painting's wiki. Should you be interested to include some of this resource in your JSS wiki, the booklet is 64 pages long with many black and white plates and an extensive bibliography plus numerous apendices including the infamous letter Sargent wrote to his sister: "...I am to paint several portraits in the country and three ugly women at Sheffield, dingy hole."

Regards, Rex

I'm a bit puzzled, as I have no particular knowledge of John Singer Sargent! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, I note you have been changing some plurals for "Sergeant Major". Can I draw your attention to wiktionary. Hamish59 (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore above. Just had a look at Sergeant major and its cites. Hamish59 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm forever having to correct edits from people who incorrectly think the American plural is used everywhere! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp. You recently reverted my edit at the Station Sergeant article. I don't want to dive back in and start an edit war, but do want to discuss this with you, as I strongly disagree with your reasoning. The Staff Sergeants of Canadian police forces have exactly the same role as the former Station Sergeants of the Metropolitan Police (and some other forces), and wear the same rank markings. The role is, essentially, identical, with an only marginally different title. NOT drawing attention to this in the Station Sergeant article is to mislead by omission. Furthermore, the Station Sergeant article already makes reference to the former Crown Sergeant rank of the Royal Parks Constabulary, which again had a slightly different name, but is widely recognised as having been the same role - and again, with the same rank markings, to underline the point. I think you are wrong to suggest that this could apply to "any senior sergeant". It might, but need not. However, the Canadian Staff Sergeant, like the RPC Crown Sergeant, is essentially the same thing as the former Station Sergeant, and it is madness not to note this in the article.
PS: Though it is totally irrelevant, I'm amused that the last three comments on your talk page each have a "sergeant/sargent" as their theme, despite being on widely different topics! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothy Titus: Hi. Apologies for the delay in replying - I've been away. I do take your point, but it is complicated by the fact that we already have an article on staff sergeants. Would it not be better to add the info on Canadian police forces there? I notice that Canada is not mentioned, even in military terms. Most police forces in the world actually have at least one grade of senior sergeant (most modern British and American forces being exceptions), many of whom have a similar function to the station sergeant. Should they all be added to this article or added to the appropriate article for their actual designation? I suggest the latter is more appropriate. As a comparison, should we add the information on police lieutenants to the inspector article and vice versa? They too serve a similar function, but I don't think it would be valuable to do so. A better solution would probably be to add the info to the appropriate article and add a "see also" link. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deprod'ed Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Rajesultanpur based on the claim that it does appear to exist. How do you know? I couldn't find any results for a search of either the English or the Hindu name. Schools of this name exist in other parts of India, but I couldn't find any indication of one in Rajesultanpur. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I found plenty of mentions online, although nothing detailed. Enough to prove it exists though. Maybe you're making your searches too specific. Indian names are notoriously fluid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to a couple? The mentions I find are none of them in anything I would call a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a college, all we need is proof of existence. I think the online sources prove it does exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But again, I don't know that we have proof of its existence. I've seen some vague postings on some social media sites about a college with this name that may be in Rajesultanpur, or maybe somewhere else in Uttar Pradesh, or maybe in another state altogether. If you could share the links you're using to make this decision, my concerns might be allayed. My concern is that the original author may be trying to perpertrate a hoax, having originally posted a photo that was a generic stock photo of a schoolyard with the name of this particular school photshopped in. Once that level of deceit is uncovered, the veracity of the entire article is called into question. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently added some edits to this page, including giving a fuller name of Francis James Gray. I have a particular interest in identifying individuals full names and did not know that Frank Gray was anything other than Frank Gray. I would be grateful if you could let me know your source for this fuller name. Graemp (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His DNB entry gives his full name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted me twice on

In actual fact, your second link was to

WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah yes, you are correct. That was a mistake on my part. My intention was to link to

Yeoman of Signals is turned into an article at some point, then the link can move to there at that time. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 09:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that

WP:NOTBROKEN also says, more appropriately to this discussion, that "Reasons not to bypass redirects include...Redirects can indicate possible future articles". There is no need to pipe a link if a redirect is present. It is better for a new article to immediately link from appropriate articles than for the creator to have to go through all the possible links changing them; that is what redirects are for! I'm not sure what your problem with leaving the redirect might be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The only "problem" I have with leaving the link to

Yeoman of Signals is that it is a link that goes to a disambiguation page. However, since you object, I will leave it as it is. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 09:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not a problem, since the disambiguation page explains what a yeoman is. But I shall create a page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with more specific one on

Unfortunately, the trouble with HotCat is that you remove a category and then add a new category in two separate edits instead of the single edit that it would usually be, which appears to be vandalism if an editor watching it happens to check their watchlist between the two edits, as I did. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your comments on the deletion discussion page of the above article that I created. Although I dont much agree with your views, expressed therein, and personally believe that this article should stay and be kept, but I am nevertheless thankful for all your help and good advice/guidance. Im still learning much, as Im not a regular user here, although I try to contribute when I can; and I think this experience has also been a vital lesson at a number of levels and helped clarify many points and perspectives and policies. Sincere regardsAsadUK200 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

Since you have participated in past discussions on the use of ordinals in U.S. military articles, you may be interested in the move request I started at

Is there a policy/guideline page that says ambassadors are inherently notable? I don't disagree with you, it's just that it would be convenient to have a page to point to if I should come across a similar AfD. Altamel (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there isn't. It's been debated several times, but always come to a no consensus result. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. Notability guidelines are a mess but there's never enough "consensus" to fix them. Altamel (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Unlike Geo Swan above, I do happen to believe that chiefs of larger departments are notable by virtue of their office (as do many others - since we apply common sense and not dogma - of course the police chiefs of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai and Moscow are notable!)

Please be more careful. I didn't write that the chiefs of police of huge cities weren't notable, or were automatically non-notable. Rather, I wrote: "Meanwhile, the chief of Police of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, wouldn't merit coverage, unless they measured up to the criteria of the

I don't believe you could possibly dispute this if you were actually responding to what I actually wrote. The wording of

If you want to add a couple of paragraphs to

Please reread what I said. I didn't say you said "the chiefs of police of huge cities weren't notable, or were automatically non-notable". I said I believed they were notable by virtue of their office. As do others, given comments in previous AfDs. I wasn't referring to

trumps Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aesculus turbinata 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''''Aesculus turbinata''''', common name "'''Japanese horse-chestnut'''" ({{nihongo|''Tochinoki'' or ''Tochi''|トチノキ（栃の木） or トチ（栃、橡）}}, is native to Japan but cultivated

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tochi 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Hiroki Tōchi]] (born 1966, Japanese voice actor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leslie Bean 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:British Army personnel of World War II

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hi Necrothesp, I think there has been some confusion. There has been no legitimate consensus on the article referenced, and the genuine criticisms have not been addressed, meaning that the article is not legitimately placed to be on Wikipedia. If a proposed deletion is removed for illegitimate reasons, it can be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion (talk • contribs) 08:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely mistaken. I suggest you read

WP:PROD. "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." The confusion is entirely yours. A prod can be removed for any reason or none. An article which has survived an AfD clearly should not be prodded, as AfD is a more complex process. I am entirely neutral as to whether Pearce should or should not have an article, but I will not allow an article to be deleted without due process being observed, and you, I have to say, appear to me to be overly partisan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

honours notes
Thank you for quality articles on English institutions and their people, following interests as diverse as

awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: Would you be kind enough to review the closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Khanna? Your Keep !vote seemed a bit equivocal, and the discussion was then closed as no consensus by a non-admin. While the article is about a COO of a large company, I am not sure why that cannot be simply mentioned in the article main page (maybe make the article a Redirect? Maybe I am misreading the notability guidelines. There is little about this person in the references other than to note that he occupies this post. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, I'm not sure the non-admin closure was appropriate. I would like your opinion, prior to considering a quixotic appeal to DRV. Thank you for your time. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion that his position does make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

okay. thank you. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have renamed the

So, there being two possible meanings for Traffic policing (one which actually contains the term, and one that actually does not), then, it seems perfectly correct that it should be a disambiguation page, and I've made it so again. However, to avoid the challenge of edit warring, I've reversed the order so that law enforcement is the primary of the two. Actually, you have, in effect, already admitted this must be valid in not claiming it is the only meaning, just that it has primacy – which requires more than one. Graham.Fountain | Talk 16:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any inclination to have an edit war, but I will say this: ask most people (that's ordinary people, not techies) what traffic policing means and I can guarantee they certainly won't mention anything to do with computing! Also, while you're at it, take a look at

WP:TWODABS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Please see
  WP:TWODABS. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, but a separate page is not needed when that navigational device can be accommodated in a hatnote. We therefore generally prefer not to have disambiguation pages with only two links, where one of the topics can be considered primary. The math is as follows: if there are two topics and one gets 60% of the traffic, then having the link to the second in a hatnote allows 60% of readers to reach their desired topic in the initial search, while 40% are able to reach it with one additional mouse click. If the two topics are on a disambiguation page, then 100% of readers do not reach their desired topic in the initial search, and must make the additional mouse click. Furthermore, in determining whether there is a primary topic, we consider the relative historical importance of the topics. Traffic police in the sense of police officers who oversee vehicular traffic have existed for many decades, and exist everywhere in the world where traffic exists. They are also more visible to the casual observer than internal computer processes. Unfortunately, I am unable to get pageview information at this time, but in this circumstance, a two-link disambiguation page may not be necessary, and I believe that the primary topic is highly likely to be the law enforcement function. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

With regard to the WP policy against two line disambiguation pages, it is quite clear that that limitation applies where there is primary meaning. Well I dispute that the context of traffic police is unambiguously the primary meaning of the term traffic policing on the bases given above. I therefore suggest that a disambiguation page, even one with only two links, is a reasonable compromise. Not a happy one, just reasonable.

I did look at the article traffic statistics for

traffic policing (which was traffic policing (communications)

for most of the last 90 days) - a ratio of roughly 2:3 in favour of that infernal (anathematic) computer process.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "extraordinary" isn't necessarily a compliment! ;) -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is "ordinary" necessarily a deprecation. But...Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the second prong of

Wikipedia:Primary topic: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". I further refer you to M. G. Lay, Ways of the World: A History of the World's Roads and of the Vehicles That Used Them (1992), p. 199, stating that: "Road traffic began to increase in volume and speed during the eighteenth century, and the above mix of practices led to a clear need for some legal rule- making. In response, in 1722 the lord mayor of London appointed three men to ensure that traffic kept to the left and did not stop on London Bridge. They were possibly the world's first traffic police". I would suggest that an institution that has been around in some form for nearly three-hundred years, and has been ubiquitous in the last century, is of more enduring notability than anything that has sprung up in the past few decades. bd2412 T 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This is interesting. So w.r.t the criterion you effectively set as paramount, i.e. the greater good of WP users, so the maximum number get to the article they want with one click not two, and went on to prove mathematically ; it having failed to give the result you want, is now no longer significant? But I shall do as I'm asked, and go look. I just wonder if that minimizing the number of WP users that are disadvantaged isn't too much like common sense to trump policy. But right now the real world beckons too imperiously (in the form of "she who must be obeyed") for such idle musings. Graham.Fountain | Talk 18:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your figures are based on a faulty analysis in the first place. Up until a few days ago, there was no article on "traffic police"; there was merely a disambiguation page offering links to Highway patrol, the computer term, and various geographically localized traffic police departments. If you want to see the primary topic based on page views, you would need to look at the topic readers would go to if there was no article on "traffic police", which is Highway patrol. How much viewership has that page received compared to the computer term? bd2412 T 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do that there thing with the lines, but too many colons (spoil the digestion?).

No, still getting the motion sickness. The point, surely was about the relative numbers using "Traffic policing" to get where they want. And not about whether there's more people wanting to read about highway patrol than the network management function (many more than wanted to know about Traffic police as well)? Once they are where they want to go, the rest is just (browsing) history. So the last 90 days of stats, while

To reiterate, I contend that very few who want to know about vehicular management in a legal context will start from "traffic policing" (and nor will they stop at Traffic police as it is) ; whereas, those wanting to know about traffic policing in networks have little choice but to type in precisely that phrase.

But on the issue of the content of the traffic police page, as was, I also note that Necrothesp deleted it with the tag "no longer needed", presumably in the context of Highway Patrol, and was reverted on the point that "other forms of traffic policing also occur..." . A bit oblique, but relevant because, if that refers to yet more meanings than the vehicular and network, then a disambig page is definitely needed, at precisely that page.

But this is too much like work related stuff for the nonce, and I'm off to watch the goggle-box and drink beer till me brain turns to mush. Graham.Fountain | Talk 21:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been monitoring the traffic statistics on

traffic policing

bringing up the rear at 46.

It is about what I would expect to see, with

traffic policing

, because few interested in the traffic police (or highway patrol) would bother to type in the whole of "traffic policing".

I think I’ll wait till the end of the month before doing aught, however.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your move at the Camarena page. Before you decide to move a page, please make sure to discuss it at the article's talkpage and wait for consensus. I personally do not approve of the move. "Enrique Camarena" is more common than "Kiki Camarena".

@

WP:MOVE. I think you must be misinterpreting Wikipedia procedure. "Kiki" actually appears to be much more common than "Enrique", which rarely appears without his nickname also being appended. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Enrique Camarena" gets more searches on Google than "Kiki Camarena", at least from what I checked on my desktop. Try using the Google search bar. Let me know what you think.
  ☎ • ✎) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Some sources even use "Enrique 'Kiki' Camarena. Maybe that's more common.

☎ • ✎) 20:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, that is the most common. However, we never use that form of title on Wikipedia. Either given name or nickname, but not both. And it appears to me that he usually appears either as "Enrique 'Kiki' Camarena" or as "Kiki Camarena", but rarely simply as "Enrique Camarena". That's what made me decide that this was the obvious title for the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you were a participant in the move request at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests, I wanted to inform you that the move has been proposed again and can be found here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed the prod tag at

The page doesn't need to be deleted. If you want to merge then do so and if you can't then move the page to the new title then leave me a message and I'll do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, can you help me to move the page now? After comparing the 2 articles, they are identical. I attempted to move Theni medical college to Theni Medical College, but I got an error saying "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." Thanks! Natg 19 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Needs a bit of work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commando Selection Training Course 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commando Selection Training Course 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. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in the talk page, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps accepts "corrections" online, and I have no doubt that's how those places made it to the map. (Someone also edited them into OpenStreetMap around the same time these articles were created.) I'm close enough to "Azimuth" to know that there's no place by that name, only the Ebright Azimuth itself; and eastern Montana is a glaciated plain which does not have volcanic features like maars and calderas. You've been rooked, I'm afraid; I'll set up the AFDs when I get a chance. Look forward to crossing paths with you on peerage articles again. Choess (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd always thought of Google Maps as a reliable source. Sad to hear it no longer is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It really shook me, too, but I know that end of Delaware pretty intimately, and I knew there was no such thing as "Midzemuthleiy", whatever Google Maps said. (I actually got onto this by noticing some suspicious labels in OpenStreetMap, then tracked it to Wikipedia.) I should have explained at greater length, but I was tired and trying to get some of the hoax cleaned up before I went to bed. Anyway, you did the right thing--it's easier for me to write up an AfD and explain this than it would be for some newbie to get a carelessly PRODded article back. All the best. Choess (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to mention--I've been extra suspicious after running across a weird hoax earlier this year. Long story short, there was a series of articles that appeared to be puffery centered around a socialite travel writer and her circle, all of whom had fairly active social media preferences, appeared in press releases, etc. It turned out that every single identity, including the writer at the center of it, was a complete fabrication. All of these personas were invented, fake press releases were sent to sites that just print those press releases without checking them, etc. It was one of the strangest things I've ever run into on the Internet. As best I could tell, it wasn't fraudulent, so once I got the junk off of Wikipedia, I let it go, although I had a pretty good idea of who was behind it all; I didn't really want to wake up to a press release announcing I'd died in a shootout with rurales in a Tijuana brothel, which seemed like the likely result of poking someone like that directly in their fantasy gland. Choess (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The motives of some people just lose me! Anyway, apologies for deprodding the articles. If I'd realised they were prodded by a reliable editor I would have left them. My fault for not checking. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp. I wanted to know why you deprodded Boost (drink). I could find only three articles mentioning Boost ([6], [7] and [8]), and thought that this coverage was not significant enough for it to meet the notability guidelines. What have I missed that makes this product notable? EdwardH (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a significant enough brand for an article. And prodding is only meant to be used on articles about subjects that are clearly and uncontroversially non-notable, not those that are even borderline notable. I don't think you can say that about this brand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AfD tomorrow. EdwardH (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Here's the AfD entry. Sorry for the delay, I forgot about it. EdwardH (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I am somewhat puzzled as to why this article has (apparently) been moved to Tom Rees (British army officer). All (commissioned) British airmen, prior to 1918 and the founding of the Royal Air force, were either Army or Naval officers, so that we apparently need to rename a good many article on this precedent. I cannot understand how this exercise would improve the encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the standard disambiguator for British Army officers and has been for a long time, as you will see if you look at the appropriate categories. So in fact most articles that need disambiguation have already been named in this way and Rees was already one of the exceptions. We aim for consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Necrothesp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Certainly... the truth is that about 70% of all schools in the UK since the 1960's have been comprehensive... including many ones that have closed. To include them all in a comprehensive category is meaningless. In the same way, think of how many Grammar schools have existed in the UK... if they were all to be in a grammar school category, it would be very difficult to tell which ones are actual operating grammar schools and which ones used to be...? See what I mean? If you really think its vital that these two articles be defined in a comprehensive school category, I would suggest you create a Defunct comprehensive schools in... category for them - Bleaney (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't really agree with you at all. I don't think it's meaningless in the slightest. But, has this been discussed and decided somewhere and it's simply that nobody could be bothered to add a hatnote to the cats explaining the situation? Because I see no hatnotes whatsoever and it's hard to work out a categorisation scheme like this without explanation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm skeptical that there's a British English style for titles of entities smaller than a town, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Is there a "British English style" for buildings? Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, last year you contributed to a deletion discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_Leslie_Dingley where you stated "We have generally held that the three highest grades (GBE, KBE/DBE, CBE) do provide inherent notability under WP:ANYBIO #1." I am currently involved in an AfD discussion and wanted to make the same point. Please can you tell me if there is anything more on this point I could reference? Graemp (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I don't understand what makes them different from than other knights, particularly given that they have numbered titles. But I will know for the future. Thanks. Star Garnet (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're hereditary, like peers. Ordinary people with knighthoods only hold the title for their own lives and don't pass it on to their heirs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe that

WP:MOR existed when I began being heavily involved if maintaining the deaths pages. Another thing I will keep in mind. Star Garnet (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Our move procedure hasn't changed in the ten years I've been here! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure the speedy delete procedure for redirect pages didn't exist then. Star Garnet (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the move procedure still shouldn't be circumvented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Star Garnet (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]