User talk:HouseBlaster

Template:Contentious topics/topic specific standard templates has a line that says "No page restrictions editnotice". Given that links to the template for talk pages about page restrictions, I'm not sure why there's a "No" there? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I'm blind as a bat it seems and missed the one for page restrictions just above! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi The Bushranger! I can easily see how this is a weird way to layout that template—I have proposed using a parenthetical (mandatory for an editor's first alert) or (mandatory for pages with active restrictions) to convey that these alerts are mandatory on clerks-l. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 22:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Meant to reply to this earlier— Done :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Two years! ...

Precious

Two years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, already? Thank you Gerda :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 13:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, HouseBlaster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BOTTO _(T•C) 20:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; replied :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you consider revdelling the potentially hateful revisions under RD2/RD3? Namely from Special:Permalink/1327310607 to Special:Permalink/1330055170 (excluding 1330055170 where the banned user template is added). It is counter to WP:POLEMIC and I do not think there is a good reason for the entire world to be able to see this. The actual revdel window might be even narrower, perhaps from Special:PermaLink/1332324158. Thanks. Aasim (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

What are you concerned about? (Genuinely.) The user boxes are now red links. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I was primarily looking at the quotations at the top of the page. The quotation about England in the revision after the earliest I linked seems to be a bit distasteful and potentially offensive (I am not entirely sure though); but the quotes that seem to originate from a Nazi sympathizer (and some of the other userboxes such as User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Maurrassisme (which is now nominated for deletion)) do cross a line into WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UPNOT. The entire "politics" section of the infobox as well...

The problem with old revisions is one can still link to old revisions to show the potentially prohibited content to others off of Wikipedia. But I'll leave that judgment call to you. Aasim (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Certainly agree it is, to use your terms, disasteful and potentially offensive, I don't think it is eligible for revdel. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 04:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware, but further up User talk:RifatHasan25 there is discussion of sockpuppetry and the resolution was to unblock RifatHasan25 and block the other ones, which haven't been used since well before I partial-blocked RifatHasan25. Naturally these two accounts would show up to a checkuser. I don't know if your recent checkuser block was due to that, or some newer development. I'm just concerned that you issued a block without explanation based on old news. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I was thinking of a different user I partial-blocked. They sort of all run together in my head. This isn't the same one, although those other accounts are basically stale. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Found it. I was thinking of Gasgas11, who has been complaining about his partial block too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah. No worries! I'm still sad that this person decided to sock :( HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You put the LLMCOMM discussion in the WP:CENT archives. Are you planning to close it? Rhinocratt
c 20:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion § When and how to archive. One comment in the last week qualifies as inactive, so I archived it. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello HouseBlaster, I have a couple of questions about editing. I am working on a page and one of the topics is the 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival. It was filmed for TV and the broadcast was called "Midsummer Rock". Now, I have seen search results for things I searched that didn't have a page, but when I click them it redirects you to the appropriate page of a similar name. "Midsummer Rock" has a page but the 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival doesn't. My first thought was to make an active link for 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival to come up in search results that redirects to "Midsummer Rock" page and I would like to know how to do that.

Secondly, upon further thought the 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival should actually have its own page as the festival was pretty significant culturally- Iggy Pop's most iconic photo, and is considered the first time anyone ever crowd surfed, etc... etc... (I plan on contributing to the page after starting it and wiki link to several pages I'll be working on). Is my logic correct that this should ultimately have its own page also since "Midsummer Rock" is really a secondary thing to the event itself? If so, how do I do that? Thanks so much for your help! DoctorRyan813 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi DoctorRyan813, and welcome! Those are great questions, and I'll answer your questions separately. To create a redirect, you can follow the instructions at Help:Redirect. You want to add the relevant text to 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival.

Second, whether to make a separate page is a complex question. There's two things you should consider:

1. Whether it should be split between two articles
2. Whether 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival is even eligible for an article

For question 1, the official guideline is that editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. If they are deeply intertwined, we should cover them in one article. For example, even though they were two different people, the Wright brothers are covered in one article. If you need to understand the 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival to understand Midsummer Rock, and vice versa, they belong in the same article. Otherwise, it might be a good idea to split.

For question 2, we actually have an entire guideline dedicated to determining whether events qualify at Wikipedia:Notability (events). The quick version is that events should have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, ideally long after the event took place. I hope this helps; let me know if you want me to answer any other questions! And again, welcome to Wikipedia :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 05:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I will check out those guidelines. It seems that maybe ultimately the Midsummer Rock page should be renamed to 1970 Cincinnati Summer Pop Festival and Midsummer Rock should be a subcategory on that page. I may have bitten off more than I can chew at this time, but this will be a good goal for me to work towards.

Thanks so much! DoctorRyan813 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello HouseBlaster, I think your willingness to teach LNC and to help them communicate with SMason is very admirable. I’m not inclined to get involved outside of correcting some errors in LNC’s editing during this learning process.

I’m only doing the low-hanging fruit, but even there, I can see how there could be some nuance. My understanding of LNC’s view is that Islamic terrorism is materially different from terrorism carried out by the Islamic State, and it seems many of their category space edits reflect that view.

In these edits I removed ISIL categories from pages where the perpetrator is credited as Islamic State – Sahel Province (ISSP). For the sake of category space, is that a distinction without a difference? Is the concept of ISIL close enough to the concept of ISSP? I think at one point some of these categories were called “ISIS-related”. I’m sure there was a good reason to change that, but it does seem like “ISIS-related” is more applicable to ISSP than ISIL is.

In berry terminology, I would think IS is the fuzzy berry, ISIL is a blue fuzzy berry, ISIS is the American term for blue fuzzy berries, and ISSP is a red fuzzy berry. Mikewem (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I think your edits and explanation are correct. @LateNightCoffee: what would you say about the differences between ISIL and ISSP? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem did you empty this? Category:Sikh terrorist incidents in the 1940s

Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

No Mikewem (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem You have never made any edits to categories before this. What is the reason for your sudden interest? Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, @Mikewem, The name is outdated. The way to solve this is to rename the categories, not remove them from pages. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Category: Islamic State currently redirects to Category: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Every "province", including Sahel, is in Category:Factions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. All of the activities of all of the regional divisions are in categories named "ISIL" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", except a few that I have made recently and named ISIS or Islamic State. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"ISIS" would be suitable even without "related". The name "ISIL" is no longer in widespread use, but other translations that correspond to the same meaning are still in use (ISIS, Hebrew: דאעש Arabic: داعش, romanized: Daesh) and are used for other regions as well. There's some convoluted politics and theology behind this, which I can explain if you are interested? But this is already too long. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The name ISIS is often used for "ISIS-K" aka Islamic State – Khorasan Province, in "Khorasan" East of Syria / Levant region, e.g. PBS in 2024 and US Department of Justice in 2025

It's used sometimes for Africa, "ISIS gains ground in sub-Saharan Africa" from International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Reichman University in 2025 uses "Islamic State" in the title and ISIS below.

Al Jazeera English still use "ISIL" "Is ISIL a growing threat in the DR Congo and East Africa?" 30 July 2025

For some groups the connection is ambiguous, but currently attacks by "Islamic State ____ Province" belong in the "ISIL" categories.

If you object to that @Mikewem, the way to fix it is to start a discussion in Categories for discussion about re-naming them at the root of the tree Category: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not mass removing categories from pages.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Mikewem, what do you think about this? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 15:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I would think that a solution is either to leave the ISIS/ISIL categories as they are, keeping all the historical ISIS stuff in them, and then create new categories with just IS in the name to cover all of the franchises and all of the IS stuff that happened after the general fall of classic ISIS.

Or we could lump all the pre- and post- fall of classic ISIS content under IS.

But I don’t think calling the newer stuff ISIL (the newer stuff that happens outside of Iraq or the Levant) and hoping it will get fixed someday is a good solution.

The previous apparent status quo, to categorize all the newer, post-ISIS fall stuff as Islamic terrorism seems like the best option to me. Mikewem (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, but again, I am not a subject-matter expert. Thoughts, LateNightCoffee? HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, The status quo is that ISIS-K and other sub-divisions are in the ISIL tree.

They are categorised in Category:Islamic terrorist incidents by year, because the years are new, but they are categorised as ISIL in numerous other subcategories. about 200 I think, including dozens of groups in the factions category.

@Mikewem, do not remove any of these until you have created a broader new category to put them in, and no, not "Islamic terrorism", they are already in the Category:Islamic State category.

The best way to achieve what Mikewem says they wants is to rename the whole sub tree "Islamic State". Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I could see renaming the whole tree to IS as reasonable, given how history has unfolded since the categories were first made. I don’t know one single thing about how much bureaucratic and technical work it would take to make that happen, but I imagine it’s a lot.

2025 Banibangou attack is as good an example as any. Before your edit, it was in an Islamic terrorism category. I view that as an acceptably correct description. Perhaps not the most perfect possible incarnation of correct, but acceptably correct. Then you moved it to an ISIL category. I removed that because I view it as an unacceptably incorrect description-the term ISIL does not appear in the article. For right now, I oppose the ISIL category and I support either returning to the previous category or having neither of them. I presume you would not support returning to the previous, but are you able to support neither? It’s not completely clear to me that this specific page has a strong claim to the use of terrorism terminology anyway. Mikewem (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

2025 Banibangou attack is in Category:ISIL terrorist incidents in Niger that category was made before the years. I think I added years when I made the year categories a month or two ago. They probably gave Niger the ISIL name because Sahel Province been in Category:Factions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant since the first version of that page. As I showed you from the Al-Jazeera page and others above, the "Iraq and Syria / Levant" name is used for Central Asia and Africa as well as the original territory. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, Changing the names of the categories is less work (and less likely to get you blocked again) than trying to add "Islamic terrorism" categories to hundreds of pages by hand.

If you start a community discussion to do it properly, the changes on pages are mostly automated. You need to do this via adding {{Cfr}} on Category: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant then follow the prompts to start a community discussion on Wikipedia: categories for discussion. When the community decides on a new name, you need to change all the ISIL categories to the new name using {{Cfr-speedy}}. This is a few dozen pages, but then a bot renames the category on the page, I think? But wait till @HouseBlaster confirms I've explained that correctly?

I don't think "IS" is recognisable enough. The options for a widely used common name are "ISIS" and "Islamic State". I think the second one needs a qualifying word or two on the root category to distinguish from Islamic state, but that needs a consensus discussion to decide. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my use of “IS” should be taken as shorthand for “Islamic State” Mikewem (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Category: ISIL attacks on Shia Muslims

Parents: Category: ISIL attacks on Muslims and Category:Persecution of Shias by the Islamic State...

Contains:

• almost everything in Category:Persecution of Shias by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• about half of the pages in Category: ISIL attacks on Muslims

Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee: Go ahead and create it :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster He's asked about this category repeatedly, and I had asked him to wait until the discussion about the parent had closed. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Category:ISIL attacks on non-Muslims ^SMason_Garrison 21:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I missed that detail. I would recommend @LateNightCoffee: wait until the linked CFD is closed. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Nobody has answered me yet about if I am allowed to contribute to that discussion? Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee I answered your question already in the other thread where you asked if it was ok to post in the discussion. .^SMason_Garrison 01:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Bludgeoning is not a very reasonable criticism from the person who put over 170 messages on my talk page when I repeatedly told you to put non-urgent things elsewhere. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want your CFDs to close faster, my advice still stands, ^SMason_Garrison 16:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster I don't think the usefulness of the category Mason doesn't like can be fairly assessed while she is obstructing my attempts to integrate it into the tree. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee I have asked you to wait on creation until the discussion has closed. I have explained to you why it is important to wait. Your characterization of my concerns are not accurate. ^SMason_Garrison 01:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I describing your plans and that would be an acceptable substitute for the purposes of that CFD. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 02:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this, can you please rephrase? Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be my fault; I made a bunch of typos! I meant to say "I think describing your plans and would be an acceptable substitute for the purposes of that CFD". In other words, describe what you want to create at the CFD, and then the participants can debate that. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I was considering relisting the discussion with a summary of what I intended to do with the category. Is that what you meant? Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Heya. how do i use an episode table? --Gamefan128 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gamefan128! Some templates like episode tables don't work well with the visual editor, so you need to use the source editor. You can see an example at Template:Episode table#With Episode list template; just copy that into the source editor and change the values which need changing. Let me know if you need any help with this! Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 15:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Jamie. I’ve been editing for awhile now but I have a few questions when you get the chance --Boomersooner6553 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, and welcome to Wikipedia! What questions do you have? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I am having problem with reliable sources. It is really hard to understand what is and is not reliable. I am aware of the page about reliable sourcing. But what actually counts as a reliable source? Is there a general rule to follow? --Boomersooner6553 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Good catch on that, and for positively addressing the situation. I'm glad you caught that before it escalated. I think I may drop a hopefully helpful note as well.

Just a thought - I don't know that I'd call you "involved" for facilitating communication between the two editors, but I guess the category creation "permission" aspect, I suppose.

For me, other than attempting to helpfully provide links to category-related policy and guidelines, I haven't assessed any of their edits, I just saw the talk page, and hoped it could de-escalate by my suggestion for consideration. So I've been staying out of it, leaving it to you three.

Anyway, just wanted to offer you a kudos for your fast action : ) - jc37 04:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, jc37! Perhaps I wouldn't be considered WP:INVOLVED, though I think I am. By any plain meaning of the dictionary definition I am involved in the dispute. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Didn't realise you'd responded to my comment when I went back and edited it; wanted to make sure you were aware that I changed it! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed—no harm, no foul! Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Curious if you've poked at anything regarding []? I don't think L235 saw it, and the error is still on the protection log, - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I was going to deal with it, and then I got the flu and it fell off my to-do list. I'll take a look this weekend! Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I've come up with a simple solution: we can just WP:SUBST the entry in its non-error state. Kicking the can down the road... but it works for now. HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's simple and it works... thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This CFD closed as merge, but I don't know how to do the correct admin to implement the consensus, and I don't think Mason would let me do it myself. Are you able to follow up for me please? Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, did I relist this correctly? Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Admins eventually list closed discussions at WP:CFDW, which tells a bot to implement them. I've done this one for you, but in the future this will happen in due time. Your question about relisting was correctly answered on your talk page by Jc37 :) Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Am I allowed to readd this without the accusation of racism?

if yes, does it even make sense to give this kind of statement there? Bananakingler (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence#Cut it out. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)