User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archive 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It might be best if we resume our discussion on the Rania Khalek article as administrators have found it irritating when users divert from the pages main purpose. Philip Cross (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: another user has expressed a different concern of a different article, which means this is a widespread complaint now so the admins will have to have a look at it. I know what you're doing, it is very obvious to me and I don't like it. People using Wikipedia for their views is not right. IWI (chat) 14:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I draw on cited reliable sources, rather than my opinions, first. Philip Cross (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: Your opinion shouldn't come into this at all. IWI (chat) 14:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You have completely derailed my question at ANI. Successful work at Wikipedia requires knowing when to keep quiet. Piling on with redundant thoughts means my question can be successfully disregarded. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Not quite sure what you’re referring to. IWI (chat) 09:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made one comment at ANI in the last 24 hours and you should be able to find it. You responded immediately after in a way that masks my question. Your response had nothing substantive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I was responding to a different editor, but I get your point. IWI (chat) 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:IWI, you can make your own decisions as to how to reply to other editors. However, in my opinion, comments on talk and discussion pages within a section should be in chronological order. Not doing so means users are likely to respond in parenthesis, as I had to do yesterday, to ensure the other user realises a response has been made. Philip Cross (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. 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.

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: thanks for your reply. I assure you that no threat was intended, and I apologize if you got that impression. As I said, I believe your contributions have been in good faith. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You wrote "this topic has been discussed extensively and settled." I did look for that discussion but can't find it. Could you let me know where you think it might be. As to WP:COMMONNAME, yes it does refer to titles, but I was referring to all 3 links read together. The title of the article is New York City (not City of New York) per COMMONNAME, and the other two links show that almost all articles start with the article title (the "common name") in bold, before also showing variations. Finally, not sure why you think "City of New York" is the official name (it's not, or at least not more official than New York or New York City, or NYC for that matter), or why, even if it were the official name, it would come before the common name. Station1 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Station1: You are wrong; the official name of is the "City of New York". You should start a discussion so consensus can be reached. There was a discussion relating to names of the city a number of months ago somewhere in the archives. This format was in the interest of giving equal weight between "New York" and "New York City". IWI (chat) 08:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The article has that title because wit is a natural disambig and a common name. IWI (chat) 08:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my point. And that's what usually comes first in the first sentence of any article, so why not here? Or if you're saying "New York" should come first because that would be the title if not for natural disambiguation, I have no objection to that. I just don't understand why you want the least common name first. Station1 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this the discussion you were referring to?: Talk:New_York_City/Archive_18#Changing_infobox_title. That was about the infobox, but has nothing to do with the first sentence, as far as I can see. Station1 (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Station1: Possibly. Regardless, per BRD you should discuss the change. IWI (chat) 09:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. Per BRD, you made the bold edit, I reverted, so you should start a discussion if you wish. Especially if you can't find the discussion that you claim shows consensus supports your view. Station1 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Land of Entrapment. Since you had some involvement with the Land of Entrapment redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, this is a notice that Land of Entrapment, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@OcelotCreeper: It is not a hoax it is a local nickname. IWI (chat) 07:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Yeah I figured that one out because of the discussion page, and I removed the speedy deletion template ASAP. I apologize for the speedy deletion nomination. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@OcelotCreeper: That’s ok; mistakes happen. IWI (chat) 17:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caroline Flack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can claim that is the case. Would you say Robbie Burns or Nicola Sturgeon should be described as "British" or "Scottish"? Dylan Thomas: Welsh or British? These people have their nationality described clearly on their articles, so I'm not sure of your rationale in saying McCartney isn't English, or trying to say that "English is not a nationality" (And that's palpably false. Do some research before you make such claims again please - start with English people and English national identity. Both articles have links to academic sources to verify things). - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You cannot be an English citizen or an English national legally. What are you talking about? IWI (chat) 00:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

They are entirely different concepts from nationality. You've avoided the questions above entirely. How would you describe those people in their articles? - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: In the nationality parameter, British. There is no such thing as an English or Scottish national. You can’t be an English National legally. IWI (chat) 14:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So, so wrong. "Nationality" is not just a legal concept, which is the way you are trying to force the definition. It is a much broader concept, and you do the encyclopaedia a disservice in trying to force the square definition into the round concept. What you are describing is the concept of citizenship, not nationality. The {{infobox person}} template has fields for both citizenship and nationality, to show that the two are very different. Obviously English, Scottish or Welsh would be the wrong entry in citizenship, but they are entirely correct in the nationality field. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Since there is no consensus on how to meet this issue in relation to the U.K. I’ll put it this way. Do we have a source for whether McCartney prefers English over British as his national identity? If not then why would you consider changing English to British as "wrong"? IWI (chat) 16:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a loose consensus, which is why there is a "nationality" field in addition to the citizenship one, and why there are so many articles that use English, Scottish and Welsh. As to why changing is "wrong", I'll flip the question round to you and ask why it is "right". If it ain't broke, there's no need for you to change it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Höfner 500/1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop commenting about other editors at any article talk page, and particularly not at Talk:Sydney. Administrators, including myself, have become exasperated following the enormous discussions at WP:ANI on the topic. In normal times, comments such as yours might be overlooked, but the ANI discussions mean that normal times no longer apply. I will block you if you continue. You have not said anything particularly bad, but think about the effect on the discussion at Talk:Sydney. If someone makes a mild observation with negative thoughts, how are others supposed to respond? Naturally the situation can only spiral downwards. Everyone must focus on content and not contributors at article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Absurd. IWI (chat) 10:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don’t know anything about such discussions but I will obviously refrain. IWI (chat) 10:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I have read the ANI discussion you were referring to and I now see how this may have looked. In light of that discussion, which I was not previously aware of, my comment would not be appropriate, and so I express my apologies to AussieLegend. IWI (chat) 11:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As I said at Talk:Sydney, nothing that you said worried me regardless of whether or not it was appropriate. Let's put this behind us. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a short reference to Hamilton & Benet 1999 in there. Would you mind adding the full reference? It's missing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I'm not sure what you mean; I believe the reference is complete. IWI (chat) 23:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also I would love your feedback and/or suggestions for how the article could be made better. IWI (chat) 23:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any specific feedback for that article, since I don't know the subject. But reference 51 does not have a full citation to go with it. It just says "Hamilton & Benet 1999, pp. 558, 585". Well, what is Hamilton & Benet 1999? Is it a book? What book is it? It is a journal article? If so which? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I didn't retrieve this reference myself but from what I can tell, it must refer to a 1999 book entitled Landing It: My Life on and Off the Ice by Scott Hamilton and Lorenzo Benet. IWI (chat) 01:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The book doesn't have 580 pages, but it does talk about the subject and its the only book written by Hamilton & Benet. Must be it. IWI (chat) 01:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A12 autoroute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bailly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi ImprovedWikiImprovment. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, ImprovedWikiImprovment. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks a lot! This is the second account I have used and I think this is my sixth year here. Appreciate the message :) I hope many years to come of me improving the world's greatest encyclopedia. IWI (chat) 17:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: thanks :) IWI (chat) 22:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure edits like this are helpful or useful. This article has three links in the opening line, along with half-a-dozen or more links from the footer template. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Yes you're absolutely right; sorry about that. Please forgive me as I am still getting used to AWB. Regards, --IWI (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was this article I made considered an orphan? Please enlighten me, please? Same with the other two articles, (Yagit and Dading episodes) Thank you! Remy Ferrer (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Remy Ferrer: Hi. This is because no other Wikipedia articles link to it. Please add links to the articles on related pages, otherwise nobody will be able to find it. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello :) hope you don't mind me popping in, but I've had an odd experience and I'm not sure what to do (if anything). I was reading this Daily Mirror article about Banaz, note it's dated 20:30, 29 Sep 2020; and I couldn't help but notice that great swathes of it are word for word what I've written in her article, the sections about her funeral and memorial are practically identical - they've even missed out the same bits I did when I was quoting someone. I put the funeral section in on 18 Sept and I added the info about her memorial on 26 Sept. I added info about her family on 16 Sept - including details about Bekhal, Payman and their father - these details appear in the article also practically word for word! I wouldn't want anyone to think I'd copied the info - because I haven't. Help. --DSQ (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaSnowQueen: Yes well since we are published under a free licence they can do that, although really they should attribute their source according to the licence our contribs are published under. If they don't attribute you could probably make a complaint to them to either attribute or take it down. That really is poor journalism. The dates prove that you originally created the content. --IWI (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaSnowQueen: I would send an email to webnews@mirror.co.uk telling them that they have broken copyright law and need to either attribute where they got the text from or take it down, per this page. They also have to re-release it under the same license as Wikipedia, otherwise it is illegal. --IWI (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Morning! Thank you for your response and advice. I really don't think I can be bothered tangling up with them, to be honest. My instant and overriding concern was that anyone would think that I'd copied the wording from their article. I know, with a bit of digging in the edit history, I can demonstrate that isn't the case - and I realise there are only so many ways you can reword a fact, but the déjà vu feeling I got just threw me a little bit. Lazy journalism. Anyway, I'm about to add something else to the article, let's see if that appears in the next edition. --DSQ (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment! Here is the October 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

• What's Hot! (candy time?)
• Articles (New One this month)
• Interviews (We have a new Interview!)
• News about Wikipedia! (WAM 2020)
• Editor's Notes (News/Updates!)
• Activity Page (Activities?)
• Ads (Super Cool Ads)

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment! Here is the November 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

• What's Hot! (Lots of turkey)
• Articles (New Ones this month!)
• Interviews (This month, we focused the interview on a certain topic)
• News about Wikipedia! (Updates about Wikipedia)
• Editor's Notes (News/Updates!)
• Activity Page (Activities!)
• Ads (Super Cool Ads)

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 02:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• This Message was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrats.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks! --IWI (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment! Here is the December 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard. Pilot Project, trying a smaller and different style newsletter

• Here are the events of December 2020

Category:Höfner has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to reconsider my draft again. Thanks --ChrisMat2020 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I did. I have reversed my initial decision and declined it instead. --IWI (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)