User talk:Schwede66/Archive 34

Hey Schwede, this one Richard Schmidt (rower) is coming along and is perhaps beyond Start stage now and maybe C class. Though perhaps that's not for me to say ? Regards -Sticks66 12:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you, Sticks66. I've upgraded it to C-class. Unlike other editors, I do not see any problems with upgrading my own articles, at least not up to C-class, or if you have a lot of rating experience, even up to B-class. GA is the one that must be formally assessed by others but below that, you can have a go at it yourself. If you'd like a hand with rating or a review of your rating work, please say. It's not an exact science; some judgement is necessary. Schwede66 19:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes Trialpears AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

CheckUser changes AGK • DGG Oversighter changes AGK

Guideline and policy news

• WP:REFUND
  even after the namespace is removed.
• An
  TFAs
  .

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised
  COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion
  at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Hello admin, since you are active right now, please protect the article

Protected and vandalism reverted. Schwede66 05:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much..245CMR.•^👥📜 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you again, but the IP user is now adding unconstructive edits on Indrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). .245CMR.•^👥📜 05:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AIV. Schwede66 05:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, once again thank you. .245CMR.•^👥📜 05:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schwede66:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by

Sorry, my focus during July will be the Olympics. Schwede66 22:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ꟻuck you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.224.98 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it’s hardly my fault when you don’t read the rules. But if you want to throw around some profanity, it’s not clever to log back in immediately afterwards and then show up on my watchlist demonstrating that you still haven’t read (or understood?) the rules. Are you watching my page? Shall I put a link here for your convenience given you always delete notices from your user talk page? I’m watching your talk page in case you had not noticed. Schwede66 16:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I've had a look at the IP's contributions and I no longer think this is "Pinky". The IP edits in an area of interest of mine but I don't know where I caused the upset. Schwede66 22:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harper J. Cole -- Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

Thanks, Harper J. Cole. Much appreciated. Schwede66 19:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article Grace Prendergast you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grace Prendergast for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harper J. Cole -- Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "for" to while, maintining that he was arrested while doing geometry, not because he was doing geometry. However, I think the previous hook was correct. He was arrested because the authorities mistook his geometrical drawings for espionage. Therefore it is a reasonable statement that he was arrested "for" his geometric work. It's certainly more hooky. I could very well be wrong, but would you give it a thought? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.26 Please discuss here: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#The current John Rolph DYK.... kind of misleading "click-bait". Schwede66 17:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66! I hope it's ok I'm reaching out after finding you at Recently active admins. Could you check out Special:Contributions/GeneralLeeStudiosOfficial for a NOTHERE block. They're just hear to shout about BLM and call editors racist pigs. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! Already blocked. Thanks anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a day ! But there'll be no gloating from me. Can you remind me what's that editing trick where in an infobox medal section which is too long (because for instance it has U23 WC or Junior WC medals) there's a way to have that medal list remain in the code but not show on the page. Do you know what I mean ? By the way, I meant to sorry that I forgot that today was the day of the Hannah Osborne DYK fact, and I was editing the article including the grammar in that sentence about the surprise selection. Hope I didn't stuff that up. Rgds -Sticks66 07:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Sticks66, thanks for calling. Crikey, I got pretty nervous before the W2x. Here's a nice DYK Twitter thread for your enjoyment. Thanks for your edits; I haven't actually touched any of the bios today. Very nice medal haul today on your side of the ditch.

What you are looking for in regards of medals in described in Template:Infobox_sportsperson under the parameter show-medals. I think I've seen it before where it always shows part of the medal table (e.g. Olympics plus World Champs), with the minor medals hidden by default. I've never done that myself and it does not appear to be documented. Maybe it is based on using the medal templates twice; have a play in your sandbox. Schwede66 08:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes BusterD Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes TheresNoTime Oversighter changes TheresNoTime ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An
  G13
  speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an
  requested move discussions
  .

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

Hi!

I recently did a draft for Ian Johnstone (broadcaster) which was accepted today to the main space today. It needs major expansion however or to reword it. Would be great if you could look at it and expand. I also did the same for Michael Haigh which was also accepted into the main space. I found and gave both these articles a go after seeing them requested on the Wikiproject page for New Zealand. Only working with what I can find online, I am sure both of these articles can be expanded. Thank you! --ArleneHerman (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks, ArleneHerman. At the moment, my focus is on the Olympics. Schwede66 08:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems! I will try and expand pieces here and there. Thank you for letting me know. --ArleneHerman (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit in the preparation area, constituting a change from what had been approved as the hook, led to a totally untrue statement being pfesent on the Main Page for 12 hours. Schmidt did not take part in the women's 4x400, and your assumption that what may have been scheduled to happen on 7th July is actually what happened on 5th August shows very little understanding of what happens in sports, and an indifference to the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: You come across as condescending. You might want to work on that. Schwede66 19:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is your way of reflecting on your responsibility for this farce? Take some responsibility, don't just try to attack others. Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: I am most happy to discuss the issues at question, but certainly not when I am being attacked. You might want to work on your communication skills. Schwede66 21:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a statement of fact. Amakuru has acknowledged and apologised for his part in the error, but said that he was acting on the link that you added. So what do you have to say for your part in it? It may be more appropriate to respond at WT:DYK. Kevin McE (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: shows very little understanding of what happens in sports, and an indifference to the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia That's an attack. I do not engage with other editors on subject matter when they are attacking me. You may apologise for your attack and then we can talk. If you can't see that the quoted words are an attack, you are wasting your time posting on my talk page. In that case, this conversation is over. Schwede66 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can either admit that you made an assumption (which you would not have made if you had an understanding of what happens in sports, or a determination to ensure the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia) that led to a false assertion on the Main Page, or you can hide from the truth. Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: Wikipedia:Civility Nauseous Man (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nauseous Man: I have been critical of editing, and the acceptance of responsibility: it is Schwede, and several others of the DYK clique, who have been personally uncivil. Kevin McE (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

One is either determined to check accuracy, in which case one checks, or one is indifferent to accuracy, in which case they recycle information that is 4 weeks old that by its very nature is subject to change. It is clear which of those two things happened. Kevin McE (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McE, there are far, far more collegiate ways you can approach someone who has made a mistake. Your tone is unacceptable, and is a much bigger problem than the one you came here to talk to Schwede about. Please reflect on that. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just to close the loop – this has been closed with final warning and TBAN (mainpage) for the editor concerned. Schwede66 04:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, I saw that you warned Foxhunt38 about repeated copyright violations yesterday [1]. I wanted to let you know that I've just removed another instance of copyrighted text that they added to Information Warfare Division today [2], in case you think any action is warranted. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: Thanks for your report and sorry for not getting back to you earlier. This did not end well for Foxhunt38. Schwede66 05:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the follow up. DanCherek (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News from the West Coast Task Force Winter 2021

Kia ora koutou. Here's what we've been up to. Wikisource is going strong: we're currently validating the last pages of Preshaw's Banking Under Difficulties (1888), and have just started Lord's Old Westland (1939). Both of these are pivotal books of West Coast history, and I'm really pleased we'll been able to make them available for the first time ever as library e-books. Wikisource ☞ Over August and September we're focussing on the natural history of the West Coast. We're trying to get reasonable articles and photos for all the Coast's lizard species, like the Kapitia skink, with the help of DOC. There's plenty to do on endangered species like the Westland Petrel, and localities like the Open Bay Islands, home to two endangered lizards and an endangered leech, I kid you not. Natural History ☞ Work on West Coast artists with the help of the Left Bank Art Gallery has been going well; artists like Marilyn Rea-Menzies and Brent Trolle have cleared copyrights on some of their art so we can add a gallery to their pages. I'm running a workshop on copyright for artists and photographers in Greymouth on August 28th, and it really helps to have example pages like these to show off. Arts ☞ Meetups: Grey District Library, Greymouth, Sat 28 Aug 10:00 am • Westland District Library, Hoikitika, Sat 4 Sep 1:00 pm • Grey District Library, Greymouth, Sat 25 Sep 10:00 am • Westland District Library, Hoikitika, Sat 16 Oct 1:00 pm Keep editing and ka kite ano — Giantflightlessbirds

Hi Schwede66,

I'm new to editing here and was wondering what the difference was between the dashes I put in and the ones you replaced them with here. Thanks, Mesidast (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thhanks for asking,

MOS:DASH. Schwede66 12:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah ok, that explains it. Thanks! Mesidast (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, thanks for all your hugely helpful amends to

MOS:MINORWORK in your edit summary. Great work. I'll get to the other article over the weekend; I'm somewhat housebound at the moment :-) Schwede66 00:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Great. I am still getting to grips with a lot of the formatting rules so I thought I could quite possibly have missed something. :) We might all have a lot more time for Wikipedia editing over the next few days/weeks... keep safe!! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the reply. I don't really think the issue is if the claim is sourced or not, so much as that it's one sentence in an 8000+ character article. That seems like a

Tpdwkouaa, I reverted your edit as I disagree with the part of your edit summary that said "it has nothing to do with his rowing career". The article is a bio. Nowhere does it say that a bio must be restricted to the topic that makes the person notable. There is quite some background to this particular image in that the person who took the photo and then turned it into an artwork may become a major contributor to Wikimedia Commons; that's something that I'm working on. For that reason alone, the image will have to remain in the article. If the word "devotion" is the issue, please edit the caption to suit. Schwede66 23:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, glad to hear back. There is more to my opposition than the "it has nothing to do with his rowing career" and "devotion is too strong a word" points. Again, though it is eye-catching, I feel that the nature of the image is inappropriate as a visual aide in an encyclopedia article, and that the unorthodox and distracting nature of the image gives an inherent undue weight to the one sentence about Star Wars, which is inappropriate in a BLP. Your comment about the author is interesting, but what is the nature of this arrangement? Respectfully, I'm concerned about the apparent implication that editorial activity in an article is being used as a component in deals with third parties, is that what you meant to convey? /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1884 Western Maori general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCleanerMan We started putting election results into templates a good decade ago if those results were used across several pages as we found that over time, the results tables contained different information. Even though you'd expect there to not be any differences given the historic nature of these. This was initiated before we had section transclusions. And we've continued setting up these templates even since transclusions were introduced and I might suggest that's mostly because the transclusion instructions are close to impossible to comprehend. I agree that transclusions is the way forward. However, I'm less than convinced that it's sensible you going through these templates and nominating every single one for deletion. Had it occurred to you that it might be more useful to have a discussion about this and see what comes out of that? I suggest that you are completely overloading the Template AfD area, taking volunteer time away for potentially needless discussions. That really does not make sense to me. Would you perhaps consider stopping this silly process? Schwede66 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tfd is the place for such a discussion. There's nothing silly about this. And if you agree that having election results on template format is now pointless given how few are used in some areas, you can vote to delete on those you have created. My rationale is for these to be substituted as a table on the articles it's used on. Election results don't make good use of template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPTIVE. Schwede66 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Schwede66, you are usually much more clued up on the technology of Wikipedia than I am, but transclusion is actually pretty simple.

As a test, I have substituted the contents of {{

WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION

.

If you don't think this is helpful, feel free to revert my edits to those two articles.-gadfium 02:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, gadfium. I did my first transclusion just the other month on the New Zealand at the 2020 Summer Olympics page. But I had to look at an example on another page to figure out how to do it as I could not follow the instructions on the page that supposedly explains how this works. It is indeed very simple to do once you've figured out the how. Yes, we should just get on with converting the templates to content and then transclude as desired; there certainly isn't any value in producing TFDs by the dozen or even hundreds. Schwede66 04:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I was suggesting to happen as a result of the recent Tfd's. As an admin, you should hold yourself to a higher standard. There is no need for that kind of hostile remark. And threatening a block is completely uncalled for. And no, it's not disruptive behavior to start Tfd's for any of these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCleanerMan, look, I do not have a problem with what you are trying to achieve. In fact, I agree with it wholeheartedly. What I do have a problem with is the way you go about it. There are some 400 election result templates that are tagged by the politics task force of WikiProject New Zealand. Note that they are all tagged. If I were on a mission to clean up template space, I would probably have noticed that the talk pages are all tagged, giving the indication of an active project. From that I would probably have concluded that putting the question to that task force could be a constructive way forward. But going to TfD is, of course, also a valid way. Where you've lost me is how many individual discussions need to be started about identical types of templates. Are you going to put up all 400 templates to resolve that? What value would you, or Wikipedia as a whole, possibly get out of more than one discussion for templates that are identical in nature? That is simply a dumb way to go about it. Schwede66 18:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These templates you yourself have created I would do so. I would nominate these in stages. This isn't the first time I've nominated a large batch in rounds on a Tfd/Tfd's. I can batch several templates in one section on a Tfd page if they meet the same criteria for substitution and delete or outright deletion. That is all. The issue is that election results at the time may have been useful but are no longer as it does not make good usage of template space. There is the same issue with these Canadian templates where there are 5,565 in one category alone. A complete monstrosity of a category and of template space. And when I reach that category. I would do the Tfd. And if you do believe these templates you created should be deleted after they have been substituted where they are presently used, then you can vote for it at the respective nominations. I will not go about informing you with over a hundred messages of a Tfd nomination. Instead, I'll do a personal message. With that said, I would like an apology from you for threatening me with a block. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1914 Bay of Islands general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1928 Bay of Islands general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1860 New Zealand general election: Town of Dunedin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1946 New Zealand general election: Mount Victoria has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1949 New Zealand general election: Mount Victoria has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1951 New Zealand general election: Mount Victoria has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1957 New Zealand general election: Island Bay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1978 New Zealand general election: Papanui has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 New Zealand general election: Waikato has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 New Zealand general election: Auckland Central has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014 New Zealand general election: Auckland Central has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 New Zealand general election: Mount Albert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A
  high-risk templates
  .
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A
  TFAs
  has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Looking at the statistical areas for suburbs of Christchurch, I see Papanui North, East and South mostly surrounding an area for Northlands. Northcote is another area adjacent to Northlands. The heart of Northlands appears to be the Northlands Shopping Centre. Looking at the 2013 area units, there was nothing corresponding to Northlands - it was split between Casebrook and Northcote. The Wikipedia Christchurch template listing suburbs does not include it, nor does the larger list of suburbs in the Christchurch article. Should I treat it as a separate suburb, or combine it with Northcote (or perhaps Papanui)?-gadfium 04:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The population for Northlands in 2018 was 123, so it must be almost entirely commercial. If I combine it with another suburb I'll use a similar treatment to what I did at Hornby to separate out the demographics.-gadfium 04:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, that's an interesting question! Everyone in Christchurch would know "Northlands", so for Stats NZ to turn it into a statistical area is not unreasonable. Is it its own suburb? Hard to say. Would you combine it with Northcote? No, that wouldn't make sense to me. If anything, I'd combine it with the three Papanui statistical areas to form the "uber-Papanui". That would make further sense as hardly anybody would break Papanui into east, west and north. What you did with Hornby was a logical way to deal with vastly different land uses. The alternative to this would be to make it its own suburb, as that reflects an established sense of there being a "Northlands". But you'd then be left with a Papanui that skirts around it on three sides. Love all your work you are currently doing on Christchurch suburbs! MurielMary, what do you think? Find a map here. Schwede66 09:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. For anyone else seeing this, go to [1] and click on "Statistical area", then zoom in. For best accuracy, although it doesn't appear to differ at this point, open the statistical area subdivision and choose "Statistical area 2 - 2018". To see the 2013 census unit areas, click on "Other geographies".-gadfium 10:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the conversation, but as another Chch resident I would say that there is definitely not a suburb called "Northlands" - that's only the name of the shopping centre, not the residential area around it. In terms of gadfium's first question, I would combine it with either Northcote or Papanui (I don't have an opinion on which one) but definitely not treat it as a separate suburb.MurielMary (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've combined it with Papanui but given it special treatment in that article as the demographics (especially the population density) are not similar to the residential areas.-gadfium 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schwede66,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here

.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost put this in an edit summary...

Soon, infobox styles will not be loaded everywhere as today, but only via {{infobox}} or one of its derivative templates. I am accordingly doing my best to replace hand-boxes with templates (see documented efforts at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do, right now I am working just on those with the bordered class). This is the main reason for the edit. At the end of the day, I don't much care at all what is presented in the infobox, so anyone at all may replace the content with a template version and I'll be fairly happy.

However, the reason the edit was as "large" as it was was because the page in question is not about the settlement. It is about its government. Why then does the infobox describe characteristics of the settlement? I don't know, but that makes no sense to me, so out those parameters go. Between that and the more appropriate template, which I think is infobox government rather than what one might have gotten (infoboxes settlement or organization), you end up with a "large" edit.

Does that sufficiently explain what's going on? :) IznoPublic (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, Izno. But you are posting in the wrong place. This is a discussion that should be on the article's talk page. Schwede66 03:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll copy this over there then. IznoPublic (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]