User talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive53
This is an archive of past discussions with User:CambridgeBayWeather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – June 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
- Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
- The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
- The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.
Happy First Edit Day
- Congrats CBW. Another year in the books. Thanks for your edits here. MarnetteD|Talk 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Protection of Template:Deprecated template
I notice you indefinitely template-editor protected {{Deprecated template}} (protection log). However, it is not really highly used to the degree that it requires template protection; it only has 232 transclusions. Examining the page history leading up to the protection, it appears the protection was motivated by a single edit war over the icon between the two editors.
Therefore, could you lower the page protection to something lower? Semi-protection is probably fine; if edit-warring over the icon continues, extended confirmed protection can be pursued, but I don't think this will be an issue. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Multiple recreations
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, You recently deleted the page Ashlee Nyathi and salted it but the creator keeps recreating the article under different titles please see Ashlee Nyathi (dancer). Thanks Ceethekreator (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ceethekreator Thanks. I see it was already deleted and I protected it as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, CambridgeBayWeather. Thank you for your diligence. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#Shortcut prefixes and namespaces for context and an opportunity to respond. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Walrus Island, Hudson Bay
Hi CambridgeBayWeather,
I noticed that you reverted my edits to Walrus Island (Hudson Bay, Nunavut). Do you know if there are two different Walrus Islands in Hudson Bay, in addition to the Walrus Island in Bathurst Inlet?
The page for the Sadlermiut mentions that they inhabited Walrus Island. The current source on Walrus Island (http://travelingluck.com/index.html) doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, and I've found multiple academic sources on the Sadlermiut that indicate Walrus Island is located between Southampton Island and Coats Island in northern Hudson Bay (for example the publication that I cited from volume 4 of the Canadian Archaeological Association: "The Lake Site (KkHh-2), Southampton Island, N.W.T. and Its Position in Sadlermiut Prehistory" https://canadianarchaeology.com/caa/publications/canadian-journal-archaeology/4).
Regards, 129.97.124.64 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've also copied this comment to the Walrus Island talk page so it is visible to other contributors. 129.97.124.64 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Remove Rollback?
Thanks for stepping in and blocking Robert K S. There's been an interesting discussion on his user page since you blocked him - and it's clear that he doesn't understand why he was blocked and what WP:VANDALISM is and isn't.
I looked at his user rights history and it looks like way back in 2009 he had pretty much the exact same issue which led to his rollback privs being revoked (Alison mentioned it in the log). I think it would serve the community better if those privileges were revoked again. Would you consider doing that again please? Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Whitehorse and rationale for COA
Hi! I rarely edit wiki so I don't know advanced rules. Recently I noticed that Whitehorse, Yukon page lacks of coat of arms; I added it, but I've just noticed you removed it with remark "No non-free rationale for COA." What does it mean? Is this COA's usage restricted by law?
Best wishes,
SMiki55 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- SMiki55. Every file like the COA that is listed as being non-free means it must have a rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The file now has one and I restored it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
- 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Order of Canada
That's actually the way the Order of Canada has always worked; the formal investiture ceremony doesn't actually take place until several weeks after the person's induction into the OC has been announced. But it's not the investiture ceremony that makes it official, it's the initial signing of the appointment order — for example, if a person who was in the list of new appointees named last week dies between now and their induction ceremony, they still get inducted and the insignia will be presented to a family member on their behalf. So everybody in that list of new OCs is already a member or officer or companion of the OC as of today, even if they don't have their pin yet and even if the website hasn't been updated. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Bobby Fischer article has nothing whatsoever to do with dead tv preacher Armstrong.
Sir - What are you thinking including “satan” and a tv preacher scandal into this article about Chess GREAT Bobby Fischer?!!
User:MaxBrowne2 began the edit war. It’s his own personal article after all and he’s been camped out on it for quite some time just look at his page. And if some net improvements have been made through my edits then why call upon your admin buddy to revert them all and then protect the page? Smacks of further ownership. The quote from the link in question was NOT MADE BY FISCHER but by The NY Times reporter who wrote a 2003 piece on the preachers death. Completely irrelevant to anything at all to do with this article. And what about the negative descriptive adjectives used describing the church or any church. Unless they are devil worshippers why call any church of God a church of satan!? Complete and utter nonsense to allude to this decades old sidebar to what User:MaxBrowne2 describes as an “important Chess article” in his reason to revert. User:MaxBrowne2 states he had to address my improvement edits “one at a time”, clearly demonstrating his “ownership” over ANY content improvements or Any edits in the article, then he accuses me falsely of edit warring after he agreed with my first edit to exclude the defaming descriptive negative adjectives being used describing that church. Now that edit User:MaxBrowne2 agreed needed made and was an article improvement — well it too has been reverted after User:MaxBrowne2 reaches out to his admin pal to revert and protect. I’m a new editor and I’m done playing in this all boys club - with all you fools. What in the world does a 1978 rumor of a sex scandal about a dead tv preacher Armstrong have anything at all to do with Chess, or his ability to play chess? Did Neil Armstrong and the moon landing also affect his ability to “concentrate” on the game?! Because the moon landing occurred closer to the time of his big tournament play than this preacher rumor in 1978!! Anyone who wants to keep this totally irrelevant crap in this “important” CHESS article is nutty themselves. Show me proof Fischer was ever a “member” of that church. Just because he donated money to them does not mean he ever joined up. I visited a church with a friend, one time only, and I put money in the plate when it was passed around, that did not mean I joined them every week and became a permanent member. Now, this guy here below points to another 1972 quote from a Los Angeles Times reporter “bonds of satan”?? This is a quote by the REPORTER who wrote the article, NOT FISCHER! And WTF does that have to do with Bobby Fischer directly HIMSELF!!?? The article is about Bobby Fischer, not chess. Fischer was from the mid-1960's until 1977 a member of the Worldwide Church of God. Garner Ted Armstrong was denounced by his own father in 1972 as "in the bonds of Satan" and presumably this would be troubling to any follower of the Church. If you want a relationship to chess, consider how it influenced Fischer's playing schedule at Sousse, or his decision to publish My 60 Memorable Games. Ewen (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs)
- StutzTCB. First, you are at the wrong page. You should be at Talk:Bobby Fischer.
- Second, your comments would be easier to read if you used paragraphs.
- Third, you should sign your talk page comments using 4 tildes as in ~~~~. Fourth, I am not MaxBrowne2's admin buddy. Not sure that I have ever had any dealings with him before or not.
- Sixth, he didn't ask for protection it was somebody else.
- Seventh, you need to stop with edit summaries like this.:
- Eighth, use the talk page of the article to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather 9th - Go sell crazy someplace else. Scold a child, not me. I’m not interested in playing with any of you schoolyard bullies anymore. It’s no wonder women don’t join and get involved as Wikipedia editors!! This is a playground for one upping adolescent boy tech nerds!
- StutzTCB. There are several women editors who have joined and are actively involved. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Bobby Fischer page protection
It seems kinda excessive to fully protect an article for a week don't you think? That's seven entire days where not a single person can edit the article (nor is it for a minor figure at ~2.6K views/week). It's especially ludicrous when you consider that the dispute is just between two users alone. Couldn't you just have warned them individually and then just banned whomever if necessary? We already have rules and procedures in place for edit warring. Opencooper (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Opencooper The request was here. If I thought it excessive I wouldn't have gone with a week. The only options are to block the pair or protect. Protecting forces them to the talk page and a week gives everybody time to discuss. Blocking ensures that neither side can discuss, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I would've just blocked StutzTCB since they've been given a level 4 warning just a week ago and even taken to the edit warring noticeboard twice, but I'm not an admin of course :p. Sigh... I guess partial blocks can't come to enwiki soon enough. Opencooper (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Opencooper you would have “personally” blocked me huh. I’ve made a handful of POSITIVE content edits to improve a total of TWO articles since I joined Wikipedia as a new editor. I’ve been mistreated and BULLIED BOTH TIMES. Look at the history of the parties “reporting” me. They’ve both been blocked for EDIT WARRING, not just “warned”. They both demonstrate a clear personal bias toward the subject matter at The Dirt (Film) and Bobby Fischer.
The well known tricks to get an admin to revert (put it back to the way they want it) then lock - “protect” the page - everyone knows about involving a third party “friend” to “request” and contact an an admin — on their behalf - to block revert or page protect. And the use of socks to accomplish the same. These editors who falsely reported me are guilty of the action they falsely accused me of, and I want to be DELETED!
Who in their right mind has the time or inclination to waste playing games which a buchnof adolescent nerds that throw a tantrum of someone makes an edit they don’t agree with!?
This is how you treat newcomers and I’m not interested in participating. Got better things to do with my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- The procedure you described isn't a "trick", but standard protocol when editors disagree and edit war instead of trying to establish a consensus. You've been linked this policy before, and if you read it, you'd understand. Quite frankly, I wouldn't accuse others of throwing tantrums. Part of contributing constructively on the encyclopedia is being willing to work collaboratively and following community norms for settling disputes. I'm sorry you're unwilling to do that. [P.S. Apologies CambridgeBayWeather, didn't come here to stir things up, but rather air my own annoyance, but that's what ended up happening... *shrug*] Opencooper (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Protecting the page DOES NOT EVEN BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE TALK PAGE DISCUSSION. Blocking or threatening to block newcomers seems to be the normal protocol among more established users. How dare a newbie think they should be allowed to contribute anything. There is a clear hirarchy on one-up-man-ship.
One editor is upset a newbie is “fooling around” making edits to an article he - the vet editor -favorited - so the long-standing veteran editor contacts a “friend” to then contact an admin to block revert and page protect, or reports the newbie. How does this address the issue or build consensus.
I made two positive edits Attempting to include positive content on 2 pages. I’ve been falsely accused and reported BOTH TIMES — After I discussed on the talk page. I’ve NEVER REVERTED 3 times, but someone at the Dirt (Film) fires off that “warning” to my talk page.
You fellas are so full of B.S., you stink!
Autosigned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- StutzTCB. I realised that you were fairly new which is why I went with the protection rather than block people. I see no evidence that MaxBrowne2 contacted Dr.K. and neither did Dr.K. contact me to make the protection. The request was done at the standard page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I thought full protection was excessive, I'd already ceased editing the article and gone to the talk page like you're supposed to do. StutzTCB, please moderate your language. The purpose of the Talk page discussion is to achieve consensus, and this can't be done if you're going to throw around wild accusations. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- StutzTCB and MaxBrowne2. If you both agree not to change the page back again then I will remove the protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- On the other hand you've forced a discussion even if Mr Stutz doesn't want to participate in it. One week is no big deal and net result is the encyclopedia is improved. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- StutzTCB and MaxBrowne2. If you both agree not to change the page back again then I will remove the protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I thought full protection was excessive, I'd already ceased editing the article and gone to the talk page like you're supposed to do. StutzTCB, please moderate your language. The purpose of the Talk page discussion is to achieve consensus, and this can't be done if you're going to throw around wild accusations. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You just speedy deleted this page, but I think that may have been a mistake. User:PC78 tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Article alerts/Header for a G6 deletion (which you also deleted), and that header was transcluded into the article alerts page when you deleted it. Would you care to take a second look? - Eureka Lott 17:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. Deletion was intended for the subpage only. PC78 (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- EurekaLott. PC78. Sorry wasn't thinking. I restored it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, and no worries! PC78 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to find some information about a settlement called Berry Head in Newfoundland. I have changed the existing article to cover the island which is not near the settlement, as I could initially find nothing to support the existence of the settlement. However it looks as if there is something in the Census for the 1920s suggesting a population of 51 or 52. Our other articles say it is near Kippens, but I can't find it on Google maps.
Any ideas?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC).
- Rich Farmbrough No I don't know anything about it at all. Unfortunately the one person that might have, moved away from here a few months ago and doesn't have a presence on the Internet. I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Berry Head, Newfoundland and Labrador Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Best I can offer is that according to this less than ideal source Berry Head is an old name for the town of Port au Port East. Obviously the name "Berry Head" is still in some informal local use around the Port au Port-Kippens-Stephenville area, but I'm having the same difficulty locating any actual reliable sources — even the Geographic Names Board of Canada doesn't have a listing for "Berry Head" that corresponds to Port au Port (though it has several in other parts of Newfoundland for purely geographic features but no populated places), and neither do Statistics Canada's census profiles. So there's the answer, but damned if I know what we can actually do with it. That said, if the island is also basically unsourceable besides map-verification that it exists, then I question whether it would need a Wikipedia article at all either — but in the meantime, I have changed "Berry Head" to Port au Port East in the articles where I've found it referring to a place near Kippens. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Recreation request
Good morning. There is an article i made some weeks back which was deleted and you blocked it for recreation by non-admins because of repeated recreations. However the subject i see it relevant and also because being local, i see what and who is prominent or a name that is getting attention locally thus becoming notable.
I am referring to Ashlee Nyathi page, and i am seeking your assistance in creating it because i think the last time i created it i did not structure it well and some editors were not impressed but then the way it was deleted looking at the time in research i put, it was disheartening but however i know you can make it better.
So i am kindly asking for a recreation and i will be available to assist with info.
I also noticed that the person has been featured on some new news articles since the last time the page was deleted and below are the articles;
- https://www.263chat.com/five-emerging-entrepreneurs-under-25/
- https://www.hmetro.co.zw/harares-rising-matemba-entrepreneur-ashlee-nyathi/
- https://www.thestandard.co.zw/2019/06/19/govt-urged-support-smes-sector/
Some of the articles from previous creation include;
- https://www.newsday.co.zw/2019/04/nyathi-breathes-life-into-ghetto-dancers/amp/
- https://www.herald.co.zw/dancer-dreams-big/amp/
- https://www.hmetro.co.zw/dancer-turns-entrepreneur/amp/
- https://allafrica.com/stories/201905020851.html
- https://www.thezimbabwedaily.com/news/330604-nyathi-breathes-life-into-ghetto-dancers.html/amp
- https://www.263chat.com/amp/the-story-of-a-23-year-old-who-saw-dubai-by-selling-kapenta/
- https://www.sundaymail.co.zw/from-the-dancefloor-to-entrepreneurship
With this coverage i think with your assistance in creating this page we can have a better article.
Hurungudo (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hurungudo What you should do is create it as a draft article (Draft:Ashlee Nyathi) first and get it approved rather than try to create it directly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted and fully protected this autobiography, but I see that you have, in effect, allowed recreation, presumably having not seen my edits. I don't want to wheel, so I've just removed the more obvious self-promotion and added citation tags. I've removed the obvious copyright images, I suspect that the remaining images are also copyright, but I haven't checked. Personally, I don't think this is anywhere close to article status even after my clean-up, but I'll leave that with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- this is her talk page history before she blanked it, with repeated speedy and prod notices, which is why I protected Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak. Sorry about that. I found the thing at Zainab kobra mousavi and moved it to the capitalised version. Of course that gives no warning when you are making the move. Ah, I see there is no protection listed at Zainab Kobra Mousavi but it is possible that moving over clears the protection listing. Anyway, I'll delete again and protect both. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well that's strange. As soon as I protected your protection also shows up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't realised that happened either, I wondered why you hadn't seen my protection, but when I looked the drop-down showed "protect" rather than "change protection", and it was only when I went to the next step that the protection showed. As you say, must be down to the admin move. Anyway, no harm done, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well that's strange. As soon as I protected your protection also shows up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Green in weatherbox
Of course there is no consensus on colors, although by default in humid climates I use green for rain / precipitation which I also prefer, but I do not understand why using the green precipitation day as it is clearly indistinguishable. Notice the difference:
Green
Climate data for Mirabel (Montréal–Mirabel International Airport) 1981−2010 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Average precipitation days | 16.8 | 14.0 | 13.8 | 13.0 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 13.8 | 16.1 | 17.1 | 167.5 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 4.4 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 11.2 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 13.4 | 11.5 | 5.9 | 119.6 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 15.2 | 12.1 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 6.8 | 14.0 | 63.3 |
Source: Environment Canada |
Blue
Climate data for Mirabel (Montréal–Mirabel International Airport) 1981−2010 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Average precipitation days | 16.8 | 14.0 | 13.8 | 13.0 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 13.8 | 16.1 | 17.1 | 167.5 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 4.4 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 11.2 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 13.4 | 11.5 | 5.9 | 119.6 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 15.2 | 12.1 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 6.8 | 14.0 | 63.3 |
Source: Environment Canada |
Of course it is questionable, but I find it unlikely, I suggested using it for moisture. For snowfall I find it not logical the green, but it is distinguishable. I prefer it that way, but of course you don't have to approve of this idea. You can also open a talk topic from Weatherbox template to get feedback from more users.Kubaski (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Climate data for Mirabel (Montréal–Mirabel International Airport) 1981−2010 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | 12.5 | 12.3 | 21.7 | 34.2 | 39.4 | 45.5 | 45.5 | 45.4 | 40.2 | 32.7 | 22.9 | 18.6 | 45.5 |
Record high °C (°F) | 12.0 (53.6) |
12.6 (54.7) |
21.8 (71.2) |
31.1 (88.0) |
31.4 (88.5) |
33.5 (92.3) |
33.6 (92.5) |
36.1 (97.0) |
33.3 (91.9) |
26.7 (80.1) |
19.8 (67.6) |
16.4 (61.5) |
36.1 (97.0) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −6.5 (20.3) |
−4.3 (24.3) |
1.3 (34.3) |
10.8 (51.4) |
18.5 (65.3) |
23.4 (74.1) |
25.7 (78.3) |
24.7 (76.5) |
19.9 (67.8) |
12.5 (54.5) |
4.7 (40.5) |
−2.7 (27.1) |
10.7 (51.3) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −11.5 (11.3) |
−9.5 (14.9) |
−3.6 (25.5) |
5.4 (41.7) |
12.4 (54.3) |
17.4 (63.3) |
19.8 (67.6) |
18.7 (65.7) |
14.1 (57.4) |
7.3 (45.1) |
0.6 (33.1) |
−7.1 (19.2) |
5.3 (41.5) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −16.5 (2.3) |
−14.8 (5.4) |
−8.5 (16.7) |
0.0 (32.0) |
6.3 (43.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
14.0 (57.2) |
12.7 (54.9) |
8.1 (46.6) |
2.0 (35.6) |
−3.4 (25.9) |
−11.5 (11.3) |
0.0 (32.0) |
Record low °C (°F) | −37.0 (−34.6) |
−33.1 (−27.6) |
−29.9 (−21.8) |
−15.4 (4.3) |
−3.9 (25.0) |
−0.9 (30.4) |
4.8 (40.6) |
1.1 (34.0) |
−5.3 (22.5) |
−8.0 (17.6) |
−22.1 (−7.8) |
−33.0 (−27.4) |
−37.0 (−34.6) |
Record low wind chill | −50.0 | −44.0 | −40.0 | −24.0 | −10.0 | −3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −7.0 | −12.0 | −28.0 | −46.0 | −50.0 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 87.9 (3.46) |
64.6 (2.54) |
70.4 (2.77) |
88.0 (3.46) |
86.8 (3.42) |
103.1 (4.06) |
91.9 (3.62) |
96.0 (3.78) |
91.7 (3.61) |
96.5 (3.80) |
103.2 (4.06) |
87.6 (3.45) |
1,067.7 (42.04) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 32.0 (1.26) |
21.8 (0.86) |
30.7 (1.21) |
72.9 (2.87) |
86.5 (3.41) |
103.1 (4.06) |
91.9 (3.62) |
95.9 (3.78) |
91.7 (3.61) |
93.1 (3.67) |
80.4 (3.17) |
36.0 (1.42) |
835.9 (32.91) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 55.8 (22.0) |
43.1 (17.0) |
38.5 (15.2) |
14.0 (5.5) |
0.3 (0.1) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
0.0 (0.0) |
3.1 (1.2) |
22.8 (9.0) |
51.3 (20.2) |
228.8 (90.1) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 16.8 | 14.0 | 13.8 | 13.0 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 13.8 | 16.1 | 17.1 | 167.5 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 4.4 | 3.9 | 6.4 | 11.2 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 12.7 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 13.4 | 11.5 | 5.9 | 119.6 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 15.2 | 12.1 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 6.8 | 14.0 | 63.3 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 66.0 | 61.3 | 58.0 | 50.9 | 51.0 | 56.2 | 58.3 | 58.9 | 60.7 | 61.5 | 68.9 | 71.3 | 60.2 |
Source: Environment Canada |
- Kubaski. I use the green for precipitation so as to stand out from the temperatures. Especially where they are cold. Take a look atCambridge Bay#Climate and this is how it looks when they are all blue. As snow is a type of precipitation it makes sense to have them the same colour. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
I see you just put this in full protection. Could you make a statement on the talk page explaining why, it may help the contributors discuss the need for protection. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aaju Peter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Category (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
2607:FEA8:23E0:9EE:E051:85D5:1324:895
Could you please block user:2607:FEA8:23E0:9EE:E051:85D5:1324:895 asap for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- She is back under user:2607:fea8:23e0:9ee:852d:f3ad:2cc5:3138. CLCStudent (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- You need a range block on them. They change to quickly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- She is back under user:2607:fea8:23e0:9ee:852d:f3ad:2cc5:3138. CLCStudent (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Page protection
Hi there, can you protect the Aron Baynes page? Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gave it a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Redirection reverting
How can you revert a redirection without any reason? I mean do you know about Bangladesh? The article named Pirojpur was a redirection to Pirojpur district, which is not suitable. Pirojpur is a city's name, and that redirected article was about the city. Great Hero32 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should look at Pirojpur again and then come back an explain how I reverted the redirect. What I reverted was Pirojpur District. I reverted that because Pirojpur was a redirect to Pirojpur District and the district article could contain a link to the city but not in the form of a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Reasoning behind page protection for Template:Netflix original current series
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, hope you are doing well. I was wondering, what was the reason behind the indefinite page protecting the Netflix original current series template? I did not see any vandalism or issues that would usually warrant such an action. If possible, would you be able to explain your reasoning via a response? Thanks. Elainasla (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Elainasla Thanks for catching that. It was in response to this and I overdid the protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Page protection
Coudl you please protect page PES League? there's someone always adding info which is not asked. It's a world wide competition and he keeps adding the results from the european championships. Thanks. Phospor (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't really enough editing and it looks like a content dispute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Street dogs of the Philippines
Hi, Can i move the street dog of the philippines to aspin? ChesterW23 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- ChesterW23 It's Street dogs of the Philippines. You need to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves and follow the instructions there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of CAM4 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CAM4 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/CAM4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Störm (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
- Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
- Floquenbeam • Lectonar
- DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Deletion of images, I3 fighter.png and I3 fighter engagement.png
Hi, CambridgeBayWeather. Regarding your deletion of two uploaded images, "I3 fighter.png" and "I3 fighter engagement.png". These are from the official website of the Ministry of Defense of Japan, and reproduction or reuse of all the contents and images except images of some mascots on the site is authorized under a license compatible with CC BY 4.0 (which I selected). This is stated on their copyright policy page in Japanese, as below.
https://www.mod.go.jp/j/policies/contents.html "防衛省・自衛隊ホームページで公開している情報(以下「コンテンツ」といいます。)は、どなたでも以下の(1)~(7)に従って、複製、公衆送信、翻訳・変形等の翻案等、自由に利用できます。商用利用も可能です。" "Contents on the MoD and JSDF websites can be used by anyone for reproduction, public transmission, translation, and other purposes, with the following seven rules on use. Commercial use is also permitted."
Besides, it has a clause that particularly assumes use on Wikipedia, as following: "本利用ルールは、クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスの表示4.0国際(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.jaに規定される著作権利用許諾条件。以下「CC BY」といいます。)と互換性があり、本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツはCC BYに従うことでも利用することができます。" "The rules on use is compatible with Creative Common license 4.0, and you can use these contents by conforming to CC BY."
Therefore, may I ask you to undo the deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppprobe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ppprobe. I didn't actually delete the photos I tagged them. The deletion was done by JGHowes at Commons so you need to ask there. It seems to me that the link above is different to the one that was with the actual photos. The link you have above does not even show the pictures you uploaded. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather. My images are from this PDF which is on the same MoD website; and the MoD copyright policy is applied to it as well. Anyway, i'll get in touch with him. Thank you Ppprobe (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Members Exchange Page Title
Hi! I see you undid my change to the Members Exchange page title (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_Exchange), moving it back from "Members Exchange (MEMX)" to "Members Exchange". I made this change because I saw that this company refers to itself as MEMX predominantly, not Members Exchange (their trademark is under MEMX -- http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:9vu5lu.2.1 -- and media also mostly use the MEMX term). The page can't be moved to a "MEMX" title alone, because that belongs to a company that seems to be defunct. I thought that moving the page to "Members Exchange (MEMX)" would make it clearer for users searching for the company. If not disambiguation, what is the best way to make sure this page shows up when people search MEMX? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 606Orbs (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- The idea is to have unique titles without disambiguation terms. Currently Members Exchange (on Wikipedia) does not appear in the first 10 results from Google. Nine of the first 10 hits on Google are for different websites about Members Exchange. On is for the company Memory Express. Members Exchange (on Wikipedia) is the second result when you search on Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
When I search MEMX on Google, all of the first page results are about the stock exchange, as opposed to searching Members Exchange, which yields 5 results that aren't the stock exchange. However, when I type "MEMX" into Wikipedia search, the Members Exchange page does not appear. So I was wondering if there was a way to make the the stock exchange page show up when visitors search "MEMX", as that is the company users are likely looking for 606Orbs (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- When I just typed MEMX into Wikipedia search Members Exchange was the second result. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Ghoul Panic
Hey there. I was planning to write a page on Namco's Ghoul Panic, however I noticed that I'm unable to even start the page as page creation for it has been locked (looks like some clown kept reposting it after it got deleted). Do you think you can disable the protection so I can make the article? I've found quite a number of reviews and other reliable sources for it, so I would say it's notable to have a Wikipedia article on itself. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) No problem. Here you go Ghoul Panic. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"Pocket Aces (Company)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pocket Aces (Company). Since you had some involvement with the Pocket Aces (Company) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- el cid, el campeador. Thanks. I deleted it as an R3. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
WikiConference North America 2019
You are invited to WikiConference North America 2019 on November 8-11 in Boston. Deadline for Program Submissions and Scholarship Applications is September 20. Hope to see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Canadian airline fleets etc
Hi, just to acknowledge your terrific work on Canadian airline fleets etc. Great job. Ardfern (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
A question about Your edits to articles about Canadian airlines.
Hi! It's me again. I have a little question.
I noticed that you're very invested in making edits to articles about Canadian airlines and some of your most common edits are inserting an image of one of the airline's aircraft into the infobox, as well as adding a "Variants" column in the fleet tables. I have two questions to ask about these edits:
1. What is the point of having an image of an aircraft below the airline's logo? Is it to show the airline's livery, or does it have a different purpose?
2. The reason you gave for adding a "Variants" column is that it makes it easier to read for the common reader / non-aviator. I also noticed that you're kinda against adding a link that directs you straight to the section describing an aircraft's variant (as in, you prefer "Aircraft: Boeing 737 MAX, variant: Boeing 737 MAX#737 MAX 8" instead of simply "Boeing 737 MAX 8").
Now, I prefer to add a link simply to the variant's section (so, like the "Boeing 737 MAX 8"), where the reader can later scroll up the page to read the whole article. So, I was thinking, why don't we try to find a compromise? Why not simply write it down as "Boeing 737 MAX 8", so that the link takes the reader to the top of the article, but it also takes up less space since it already lists the variant? Or do you have any other ideas?
I hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance! EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- 1. I've only been adding the image to the box since August and I haven't really got beyond Canada yet as there were other things to update such as the AOC and fleet numbers. Most other infoboxes have the ability to have multiple images and I've thought (for a long time) that the airline one should as well. I think it provides a quick visual image to show the current livery. What I tried to do when updating them was to ensure the picture in the box was a current aircraft. I found some articles that the body didn't have a current aircraft but Commons did.
- 2. Many years ago I found at least one airline with the fleet box filled out that way and copied it. Linking to the variant directly only works in certain cases. So Boeing 737-200 and Boeing 737 MAX 8 are not too bad because they link to sections with some information. However, the majority of aircraft don't work that way. For example the de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter has a couple of common variants. The 200 and 300 series. There is de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 300 but that links to the top of the page and de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 200 does not exist. You can use [[de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter#DHC-6 Series 200|de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 200]] which give de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 200 which tells you that it it is an "Improved version." and really doesn't help the reader. Most links to aircraft variants are like that, Cessna 180#Variants is another example. I guess the direct link to the top of the article is a compromise. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response!
- 1. OK, that's a pretty fair explanation. Then again, though, most of the time, there are images of the airline's aircraft further down in the article, and most often, at least one shows an aircraft in the current livery, but I guess having an image that shows the airline's current livery isn't that bad of an idea... I don't know, though.
- 2. Alright, if the direct link is a compromise, would you be up for removing the "Variants" columns and just switching it to the "Aircraft + variant" format? Or would you rather keep the "Variants" column?
- Thanks in advance once again! EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well I would prefer the two columns but I can live with the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and removing the variants link as a compromise. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Quick question
Just wanted to ask if you've heard anything yet about when the leadership selection meeting is going to happen for the 2019 Northwest Territories general election. I've been trying to find out, so I know what day to keep an eye out for the announcement, but I haven't been able to find an answer yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bearcat Nothing other than this which just indicates later this month. There is also this and this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Research Interview Request
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the Etchubykalo (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
CSD question
Hi, while I was pondering whether to nominate Daniel Sobiech as G3 (hoax), I saw that you had just deleted it as A7. Would a G3 nomination have been declined? (I'm trying to learn how to be better at CSD.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Schazjmd It depends. Looking up a hoax takes more time. Some admins will decline if it isn't an obvious hoax. In this case the A7 was easier as the only reference was to Reddit. If it had been legit then there would have been better references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CambridgeBayWeather. Should the MFD deletion template be removed from this page now that it has been moved to the draft namespace? No corresponding MFD page for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ateneo Blue Eaglets was created after you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ateneo Blue Eaglets. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Marchjuly Thanks for catching that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just for reference in case you haven't already caught it, the "draft" was moved back to the "Wikipedia" namespace by the same editor, and ended up at MFD once again as a result. I reverted the move (I'm assuming that was OK per the MFD #1) and have commented at MFD#2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Mikhail Nazarychev
Could you please elaborate on why you deleted my draft Mikhail Nazarychev? I don't understand.
- Clemkr. I didn't delete Draft:Mikhail Nazarychev it is still there where you can edit it. I deleted a redirect to the draft. Redirects from article (mainspace) to other spaces such as draft are routinely deleted. See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#R2. Cross-namespace redirects. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Air North logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Air North logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Weather radar
Hi:
Sorry, I had to modify one of your link. Doppler radar is a general term for a radar that mesure velocities of target. It can be a police speed gun, a fighter-jet radar, or any other of a a multitude of usages. A Doppler radar adapted for weather is just a weather radar with Doppler capabilities and should not be called a Doppler radar, at most a "Doppler weather radar". Furthermore, most displays of weather radar images available to the public is for intensity of precipitation (reflectivity) and thus no Doppler.
From a fellow EC retired members specialized in weather radar,
Pierre cb (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
- Thanks. Now I feel old (not really). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
request to Review Draft saroj Gupta
I am new to wikipedia can please help me to check this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saroj_Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit15110003 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Amit15110003. I see that someone is already helping out. Best to work with them than get two people involved. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
Obstruction of edit in certain articles
Though I think you already pinged at user Gog the MIld talk page about the matter. Still bringing your notice as suggested by user Ahunt that you might be helpful in the matter.
Check the history of the 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup article. He/She has done it previously at 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and at ICC Men's T20 World Cup there were dead links too where the editor reverted the archiving describing "there is no dead link". At 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup I can't revert again, as that user is trying to get a chance of edit war to bring AIV against me. The user is kind of dispalying as if he/she owns the articles. He/She previously too kind of did not allow me to edit in those articles and accuse me of following and houndling the editor which I have no interest in. Though in 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and ICC Men's T20 World Cup he seems to not reverting anymore as seems he is embarassed by the fact that there were deadlinks. But the important question is, he is reasoning "there is no dead link", this could not be a reason at all. All citations should be archived, as Wiki Archiving clearly suggest this is useful if a web page has changed, moved, or disappeared; links to the original content can be retained and web archiving service allows Wikipedia editors to reduce link rot by preserving a copy of an online source that can be accessed if the original page is moved, changes, or disappears. Please help out. Dey subrata (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dey subrata. Replied at Talk:2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inuit Nunangat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inuktut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Lost account
Hi,
So, I was an idiot and I lost my previous account : User:MikkelJSmith. I used a password generator to update my password (e.g. LastPass) and I forgot to save it. Unfortunately, like an idiot I didn't add an email to my account so I can't recuperate it. I honestly thought that I had done so (register an email). Due to losing my account, I lost my previous contributions and edit history, but I heard that it was possible for an admin to merge the accounts so I was wondering if that's actually possible? If it's possible can I also get back my previous username or is that not feasible?
Thanks in advance,
- MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I know there is no way to recover it. See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password?. You can ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and see if there is anything new. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
What game do you think I'm playing
This subject of the labeling of these people is a sensitive issue if you even bothered to read the first paragraph of the article. Thefact is they are not Bantu people they speak only Bantu and your interest of making the original title the name is drastically in disregard and insulting, I might have abused my editing stakes to the article but to reinstate incorrection just because you think I'm playing some kind of game that I wouldn't know about is really you not even trying to see what I'm trying to term in the article. Most likely it's my amateurish approach to editing Wikipedia that's the problem and you can forgive me before hand I'm correcting your mistake in terming that article, I'll do what you want first though.Untrammeled (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No one seems to be minding the article
So I can't really start a conversation with myself, it wouldn't go anywhere.Untrammeled (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Why did you block the renaming of the article while it is incorrect in its naming
Instead of People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages now it's Bantu peoples in South Africa, does this make sense to you? Untrammeled (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. does not make sense either and neither do your repeated moves to different names. Start a proper move request and other people will notice it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll try speaking to myself in the talk page of Bantu peoples in South Africa that has last been edited in year 2007 before me to request this be named correctly
How is People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages not making sense if it notes sufficiently that the people spoken of here are the indigenous blacks of South Africa than almost all Africans in Africa, Bantu languages aren't limited to South Africa their spoken in most countries in Africa. When you say Bantu peoples in South Africa who are you talking about, even when you force yourself to take Bantu as an adjective it still doesn't make sense, therefore the article is speaking about almost all Africans in Africa than South Africans. Naming the article by saying "Those of these local bantu languages of South Africa" limits this to these specific people of which the article is actually speaking about. Indigenous spoken languages called bantu of South Africa is unique to Southern Africa and specifically South Africa that's why bundling it up with the rest of the claimed grouping called Bantu is also incorrect and confusing. The other thing to mention is the association of Apartheid and naming of Black people by the racist regime and the official disassociation the people YOU call Bantu people want, Black South African or indigenous Black South Africans I believe have the same basic accesses including the one of denoting themselves and they officially say they speak Bantu not Bantu, full stop. What doesn't make sense for you so much as to protect an incorrection, forgive my constant change move as I was in the process of finding an appropriate name for this article.Untrammeled (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Roxanne (Arizona Zervas song)
Hi Cambridge. I realize you may be busy in the real world and please don't take this as a personal criticism, but the issues on this page need to be addressed. I have to say that after looking at this that I agree with the other comments and believe the subject of the article passes our notability guidelines. As I said in my comments there I don't believe in reverting other admin actions except under rare circumstances that don't apply here, but unless this is addressed in the near future, this is heading for a Deletion Review. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem I am stuck on my phone until tomorrow. Go ahead and restore it. I still don't think it's notable but it's not worth the hassle. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Cambridge. If you still think it doesn't belong after you've had some time, feel free to send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Deleted Article: Reynolds Raiders
Hi, I see that you have deleted my article today. Could you please explain why the article is unacceptable or inappropriate?
I would like the opportunity to make whatever changes are needed to comply with the rules
Thanks for your assistance Uncledook 18:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Uncledook, first of all, please note that I have removed your IP information; this is not a good thing to spread around.
Second, I looked at the article. I can't speak for CambridgeBayWeather, but I see that what you wrote up was the history of a high school wrestling program. That is not usually the kind of thing that is notable by our standards, certainly not without strong secondary sourcing that proves that somehow this is of encyclopedic importance. Au contraire, what I saw was links to the school website, to a Facebook page, and to a YouTube video. The article was deleted via WP:A7, meaning it made no credible claim of being significant (that is, significant by our standards), and I believe that was the right decision. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Uncledook. It's just not notable enough. Look at WP:Notability. Try finding good sources for the high school and create an article about that. The team would fit in there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I emailed you about this as well, but I would like to have the opportunity to place the deleted article on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_School_District_(Pennsylvania)#Junior_Senior_High_School
How can I best go about accomplishing that. Please advise. Thanks
- (talk page stalker) Uncledook, even in an article about the high school itself, let alone the district as a whole, such information would be considered indiscriminate, especially when the sourcing is routine and/or not adequate. I would suggest taking a look at other articles about high schools and seeing how sections on athletic programs are constructed there. At most, any state titles would be mentioned, but I feel that others would agree that such a history section of one sport within an athletic program is not within the scope of this encyclopedia. That being said, perhaps an alternative outlet would be a good place to include such information. --Kinu t/c 01:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, you seem to be moving the goalposts here. The guy that deleted my page to begin with said "Try finding good sources for the high school and create an article about that. The team would fit in there." So if he agrees that the wrestling page would be an appropriate fit appended to a page for the school, that is contrary to your belief "that others would agree that such a history section of one sport within an athletic program is not within the scope of this encyclopedia". Something like this shouldn't be such a hassle that you completely discourage well-intentioned people from participating. Lesson learned, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncledook (talk • contribs)
- Uncledook What I meant was finding proper sources to write an article about the high school. Then add a few sentences or a paragraph about the wrestling. Not add the entire deleted article to an article about the school district. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for revering that edit to Wikimedia Foundation. Just an FYI: I noticed in the new user logs that the Scooby dooby doofus account, as well as two other accounts with usernames that play off of the name of fictional characters - Sherlocked Homes and JamesBondM - were just created and within only a few minutes between one another. I suspect something might be at play here, but I'm just keeping an eye on each account in the meantime. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like they don't really like you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- HA! No kidding! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Change in page name
Hello,
This is to inform that Priyakant Maniyar is my grandfather and the spelling of surname in his page is "Maniar" which is wrong.
I've edited in content but cannot edit page title. The correct spelling is "Maniyar".
Please help.
Canna Maniyar (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Canna Maniyar
- Canna Maniyar in that case you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and use the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. You also need to stop trying to advertise what looks to be your fathers shop. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems a consensus has been reached in the Bantu peoples in South Africa talk page for the change of the name into Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples
You can change the name now from what it is. Untrammeled (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. You are joking right? You have opened two more move requests before the first one was finished which you should not have done. That's why I protected the page in the first place because you can't make up your mind what the page name should be. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Why can't you rename things to their correct meaning, I wasn't correctly titling Bantu peoples in South Africa to officiate it but correct meaning for the article
7 days lapsed in the 1st one, the 2nd one was for the decision from the first one, it wasn't really for any effect but discussion for how the first decision could have been taken. The third one is consensus, the real one per say as I've discussed with one of your admins or maybe your other account. Now what I do not understand is what exactly is the interest of Wikipedia to twist things to the admins liking or driving ignorance or just some independent information pile with its own truths than the world it writes about. Notice there are no main articles about Bantu speakers in Africa titled like this one Bantu peoples in South Africa but one here and it's incorrectly titled as if to make Bantu speakers of South Africa tourists or non-African as if they just rained from the sky into South Africa, only in this region of South Africa. What I've also noticed is that the theorized Bantu expansion coincides with the Khoikhoi expansion in South Africa early 1st century CE followed by Bantu speakers earliest the 3rd century CE by found archaeological records, yet Khoikhoi are actively taken as indigenous than laxly like the Bantu speakers are taken in South Africa in Wikipedia, this is unique to Wikipedia. There are ulterior motives in these articles about indigenous South Africans allowed and proving Wikipedia just a personal space of a few than anything, why term it 'in' than 'of' if the one titling doesn't have a grasp of these people, what happens when I rewrite a new article about these people term it correctly will it be deleted because of some WP:Whatever, so Wikipedia can be used to protect ignorance just because it can. What type of person do you want to tell you that the title is incorrect, black indigenous South Africans do not take themselves as Bantu people no matter how the imposition may come they speak it, my efforts of re-titling that article is to allow people to understand these people and how they take themselves and not impose on other South Africans, that title is not a title of officiation but understanding and correction, if you reject and lock in an incorrect thing because of a vote of people who seem to know nothing about these people, . Untrammeled (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. Yes the first one was open for seven days but no uninvolved person (not you or me) closed it. The problem is you just keep suggesting different names and none of them make a lot of sense. You didn't talk to my other account and I can't see where you talked with another admin. I don't have a opinion on the name of the article but your moving and inability to settle on one single name is disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather then I've settled on "Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples" lock it in if that is your problem because is either Wiki is an open source or not. Untrammeled (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather lets be also reasonable here I know you're not involved but have involved yourself by locking in a disputable title to an article, my other point is that can you name other than the article you locked in the correct name what other article is named BANTU PEOPLES IN.... while those people are indigenous populace, to show that this goes with some Wikipedia consistency and how is Wikipedia allowing this when it's even disputed. Untrammeled (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. No I will not. A move request asks for opinions from multiple people and not what just one person wants. Right now you are the only person that supports that name while two people oppose. Another editor will later close the requests. Not me or you. Unfortunately by opening multiple requests with multiple names has caused problems that are the same as when you were moving it around. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather then who judges the opposition's value, what happens when the opposition isn't valid? Like just an opposition with no real valid reason behind it, even a reason at all Untrammeled (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. There is no set person. They will judge what you have to say and what others have to say. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- So you're telling me there could be oppositions only in the voting sections but the article's name still gets changed because of reasoning? Untrammeled (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what the person closing it will decide. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather Forgive my thoughts it seems I didn't first identify the difference between People and Peoples, so most of what I wrote in this specific talk of mine is hogwash due to misunderstanding, thank you. Untrammeled (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Help
Hi there. Sorry to contact you out of the blue. From what I gather you appear to be an expert on the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. I am currently participating in a Model Arctic Council representing the Inuit. I am struggling to gather information on the topic (sustainable energy...), so I'm requesting your assisstance. If you are unable to help, or simply don't want to, then that is fine. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Willbb234. I'm not sure I qualify as an expert but I'm willing to help. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've got to go now, but do you mind telling me briefly the connections between the Inuit and the governments of the countries that they live in and their relationship? As I understand, they have a large population in Denmark and Greenland so there must be a strong connection there, but what about in Canada and the USA? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I know there are not a lot of Inuit in Denmark proper. The large majority are in Greenland, which is semi-autonomous. I know little about Alaska. In Canada there are Inuit in the Northwest Territories (Inuvialuit Settlement Region), Nunavut, Nunatsiavut and Nunavik. Nunavut was created (Nunavut Land Claims Agreement) specifically as an Inuit home. The government is elected in the same way as the rest of Canada and the UK, 2017 Nunavut general election. Of course the majority of members are Inuit but non-Inuit get elected as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've got to go now, but do you mind telling me briefly the connections between the Inuit and the governments of the countries that they live in and their relationship? As I understand, they have a large population in Denmark and Greenland so there must be a strong connection there, but what about in Canada and the USA? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait. THank you very much for the answer. I have further questions, but maybe we should take this to email? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Moving Fencing_practice_and_techniques to Fencing Rules
There has been a proposed name change for this page since 2013, and I found this:
> Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page.
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves
Is there a reason that you don't think that this should be renamed 'Fencing Rules'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslimmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jslimmer. Just because something can be moved does not mean it should especially where it has been at a title for a long time. That comment on the talk page was from 2013 and wasn't a proper request. By the way it would be Fencing rules and not Fencing Rules. There is no reason for a capital. Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves and follow the instructions there. It will attract other opinions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- talk:CambridgeBayWeather. I take your point that it should be "Fencing rules". That's a good point. but I don't see this as a controversial move. There hasn't really been past 'debate', someone suggested it in 2013, and no one disagreed, and nothing was done. It's not conflicting with an existing page. And there hasn't been any indication that anyone disagrees with the move, or that someone might disagree with the move. Not only has the content of the page changed from it's original, but it's original name is weirdly broad. In any case, there is only a small section on Fencing technique, which link to another article anyway. If you have specific objections to renaming to 'Fencing rules' (lowercase 'r' noted), I think it's worth discussing, but I'm concerned that we're too afraid of changing something that we know to be incorrect out of just general fear of change. I think it's better that the title be descriptive of the content of the page, particularly regarding the 'technique' part, so that people don't add more techniques to this page when they'd have a better home in the Fencing_tactics page (also probably not well-named). I think it's better that we takes steps towards what we know to be better (even if it's not ideal, e.g. 'R' vs 'r') than leaving it as something that is clearly not correct. Renaming a page to match it's already existing content doesn't controversial move to me.
When will it be expected of you to change Bantu peoples in South Africa into Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples don't worry I'll fix the rest of the article
Firstly, forgive my thoughts it seems I didn't first identify the difference between People and Peoples before writing the previous talk, so most of what I wrote in that specific talk of mine is hogwash due to misunderstanding, thank you. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CambridgeBayWeather I'm not asking for you to close requests but issuing that from relevant discussion people who opposed Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples seem to thoroughly understand they have no real grounds against it. So as the initiator of stopping what was really unwarranted from me (me changing the name too often) which I was apologetic for, I think you can rename and lock the page to the agreed upon recommendation of Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples. Untrammeled (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. There is no agreed on recommendation that "Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African people" is the correct name. The only person asking for that is you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather and I've put down irrefutable reasons as to why must it be changed, so can you tell me just because others kinda don't want it changed or indifferent can that really be considered as enough. What if no one else really wants it changed but the title is still incorrect you telling it can't be corrected, hows that reliable when it relies on popularity than sense? Untrammeled (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Untrammeled. I keep telling you it is not up to me to decide. It has to be a person not involved with the discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
Interface administrator changes
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Please, explain why you cancelled the page I translated
First, you wrote in my talk page that the translated page needed attribution, following the page Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate steps. In the talk page of the page you deleted, there was in fact attribution to the italian page, even in the history of the contributions, also it was present the template for translated pages, which directly linked to the italian page. Due to copyright, in the talk page of the italian page it's written that the official website released the license to use its sources and texts, there's an OTR ticket in there. So the whole website is free to be copied. The official website was also reported in the external links. So, what's the real problem with the page? 'Cause I want to solve it, but I don't see it. If you needed the OTR ticket to be copied into the talk page of the english related page, just let me know. I don't think another request to license the content of the website http://arlef.it/ is needed, since the website already gave license to use its source according to the Creative Commons Attributions. Thanks for you answer :) --Sab.pittu (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sab.pittu Yes the OTRS ticket needs to be on the English language version as well. I didn't realise that there was one. What I saw was that at least part of it was directly copied from https://arlef.it/en/agency/about-us/ and there was no evidence of permission. I've restored the page at Regional Agency for Friulian Language. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather: ok, thanks! so now I know that in every translated page I will do in the future, if its the case, i'll have to put the OTRS ticket in their talk pages. And thank you for putting it yourself :) I'm going to ask you one last little thing: why you moved the page to Regional Agency for Friulian Language deleting the "(Italy)" part? As you can see here Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (Italy) there's the same text, to relate the Ministry to Italy more clearly. I thought it would be good to make that explanation even in the case of the page I created. Anyway, thank you for your help :) --Sab.pittu (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sab.pittu. Because of Wikipedia:Article titles. There us no other country using "Regional Agency for Friulian Language" so there isn't a need for the disambiguation. I didn't see the other, or look, but ministries change their names. The original title could have been a conflict with another. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather: ok, thanks! so now I know that in every translated page I will do in the future, if its the case, i'll have to put the OTRS ticket in their talk pages. And thank you for putting it yourself :) I'm going to ask you one last little thing: why you moved the page to Regional Agency for Friulian Language deleting the "(Italy)" part? As you can see here Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (Italy) there's the same text, to relate the Ministry to Italy more clearly. I thought it would be good to make that explanation even in the case of the page I created. Anyway, thank you for your help :) --Sab.pittu (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Can you give a second opinion?
I recently created an article on a company that within ten minutes was up for speedy deletion. I posted several reasons for it to be kept on Wikipedia and asked what I could do to resolve the issue, but I received no response and the article was deleted within an hour.
You previously told me to feel free to ask you questions if I had any, so I'd like to know what the issue was and if there's any way I can resolve it. The company is Surfbouncer and since you can't read the talk page from the article anymore, here's the link to the talk page of the user who marked it for deletion where I also asked about the issue. If it's unrecoverable then so be it, but I'd like to know what I could or should have done to make it work? Your help on this is would be greatly appreciated, Thanks in advance. Julia759 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Julia759. I looked at the deleted page and the talk page. As is there is nothing to explain how the company is notable. I could send it to your sandbox while you try and find sources. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much that would be very helpful, would any of the sites below be considered good sources that establish notability?
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9
If their not, then what sort of sources should I be looking for?Julia759 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I've modified the page with the extra references and some more information, so if you could look at it and tell me if you think it's ready to be published I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks so much for all your help.Julia759 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Julia759. You should move it to Draft:Surfbouncer then use {{AFC submission}} any someone who knows more about the subject than me will look at it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Untrammeled and Bantu peoples in South Africa
Greetings! I saw you opened a thread at WP:AN about Untrammeled and the three move requests at Bantu peoples in South Africa, so you have some familiarity with the editor and article.
There's a new mess on the article: they have started adding a line of images across the top of the article. They're free images, so there are no NFCC issues in play, but the image goes against MOS guidance for the top of an article.
I try to assume good faith, but I wonder whether they really understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines—and whether they're willing and able to do so. I hate to invoke WP:CIR, but I'm starting to have concerns. Am I off base here, or are you seeing it too? —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think they mean well but there is some CIR there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- They keep coming back to that horrendous "natively Bantu speaking indigenous South Africans" construction and trying to work it (and other such tortured phrases) into the text of the article, as well. The whole thing needs a major rewrite because half of what they write is incomprehensible and the other half reads like an 8 year old pulling words out of a thesaurus to avoid using plain speech. --Khajidha (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I have issued a warning to Untrammeled for edit warring. The discussion on the article's talk page leads me to believe that consensus is against inclusion of their choice of terminology. Furthermore, these edits do not comply with WP:MOS. I'll keep an eye on the situation as time allows, but I agree that this may be a CIR issue. --Kinu t/c 17:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- They keep coming back to that horrendous "natively Bantu speaking indigenous South Africans" construction and trying to work it (and other such tortured phrases) into the text of the article, as well. The whole thing needs a major rewrite because half of what they write is incomprehensible and the other half reads like an 8 year old pulling words out of a thesaurus to avoid using plain speech. --Khajidha (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Re: Yellowknife Highway
Thanks for leaving a message about the accuracy of information on the Yellowknife highway page. I have made some revisions. - Ryan Silke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansilke (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Canadian cities weatherbox snow color
Hello, 98% of other articles use blue as the snow color, only some cities in Canada don't. I changed it from green to blue because 1) it's visually distinctive from rainfall and 2) it should be consistent among the vast majority consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:5000:630:307A:7DB1:7F34:E59E (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- However, snow is a type of precipitation so should be the same. Total precip is green and is snow and rain. Most of the ones I see are green or in the process of changing over. And I doubt that 98% is correct. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what cities do you usually look at? Literally every city I've come across use blue as the snow color and it has been like this for years. For example, look at literally any city in America or even Toronto and Edmonton and you'll see the pattern. --2601:248:5000:630:307A:7DB1:7F34:E59E (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- So nobody got around to them yet. Take a look at the three lines for the precipitation days. They are either all green or all blue. So the three for precipitation should be all green or all blue. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- By the way there used to be flags in the infoboxes as well but they are going. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Who says it should be all green or blue? Who says the flags are going either? Calgary is one of tiny amount of cities that have green as the snow color so it'll be much simpler to change that tiny amount rather than literally every other city. --2601:248:5000:630:307A:7DB1:7F34:E59E (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the communities I see are green, not a tiny amount, and a lot of them have the flags removed. Green stands out from the temperature. They are going to look odd with total precipitation in green, rain in green, snow in blue, precipitation days in green, rainy days in green and snowy days in green. In blue it insinuates that snow is not precipitation. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not look odd with blue, in fact it actually looks more odd if the snow row is green as people commonly associate snow with colder temperatures, and further colder temperatures with blue. The temperature columns are all temperatures right? But the colder temps are blue, and so should snow. By the way, what communities do you look at? I can tell you all the cities I look use the standard blue and still have their flags in their infoboxes (not really sure where your getting that from). --2601:248:5000:630:307A:7DB1:7F34:E59E (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then I guess you are not paying attention to your edits. I see that almost all the pages you edited have no flags in the infobox. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, according to Template:Weather box, it states, "By default it is suggested to use for precipitation and rainfall the color green (associated with healthy vegetation) for distance from snowfall and other parameters. Enter green for |precipitation colours= and |rain colours=." So only precipitation and rainfall should be green. --2601:248:5000:630:307A:7DB1:7F34:E59E (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- It says suggested and what the hell is associated with healthy vegetation supposed to mean? Not all vegetation is green. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Now you're arguing against what it clearly states in Wikipedia weather box guidelines. It should simply be left as default. --2601:248:5000:630:3C93:C6B6:CFDE:1409 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- The template is not a policy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no good reason to deviate from the already set default that has been used for a good majority of city weatherboxes. --2601:248:5000:630:A5A1:B184:41EA:4290 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the boxes I see are green. Snow is precipitation. Having rain and total precipitation in green with snow and precip days in green is odd looking and confusing. Blue snow is confused with cold temperatures. There is no default just an suggestion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Permission Creating Amit Bhadana Article
Please unprotect the artical to make Amit Bhadana. Amit Bhadana is one of the biggest youtuber in India, comedy youtuber. If you want, you can also search on Google. There are many news articles on the Internet called Amit Bhadana. I am also giving you some reference from which you can see how popular Amit Bhadana is. Please, please let me create Amit Bhadana page. You will be very kind, please let me make this article
- Vikas.bikaneri Don't dump all that here. The article is at Amit Bhadana (YouTuber). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to move Amit Bhadana (YouTuber) to Amit Bhadana. So you please unprotect Amit Bhadana. Vikas.bikaneri (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) CBW, you familiar enough with the situation to know if Vikas is related to the other creators of the page? I deleted Amit Bhadana (YouTuber) under A7; I'm not sure if G5 applies also. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- No I dazon't, sorry. I must have protected based on a request at WP:RFPP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)