Close at Talk:Fascism and ideology[edit]

FYI I only reverted your close at Talk:Fascism and ideology because there was an edit conflict with Amerul's subsequent comment, and because perhaps it can't hurt to allow Major Dump to respond. Who knows, maybe they will be persuaded this time? If not, and if they return to edit warring in article space again, it may be time to post a notice about their conduct on one of the boards. Generalrelative (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

[1] I'm requesting in good faith and spirit that you explain, so I understand it better. After all, the article is not about Safire, and the descriptor is not an important contextualization compared to writing the NYT column. Geschichte (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful in establishing Safire's bona fides. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text to read "widely known as the 'language maven' and had added 6 refs to support that claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-nonazis/doc[edit]

Template:Uw-nonazis/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of AC/DS concerning India/Pakistan[edit]

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

Wareon (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted[edit]

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure reversal at Talk:Francisco Franco[edit]

Did you see that JPratas succeeded in pestering Iamreallygoodatcheckers into reversing his close at Talk:Francisco Franco? See Checkers' talk page for context. We may need to ask for a closer who is an adult this time. Generalrelative (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Heritage and Science Park[edit]

thanks on the expansion here & related. Was hoping if I got them started that someone would be able to expand due to better source access and I wouldn't need to resort to ILIKEIT in an AfD nom. Fascinating preservation/current use. Star Mississippi 15:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing some related articles as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if I can help on any of the museum pieces, let me know. Know you're covered as far as the history element. Star Mississippi 23:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've straighten out some of the muddled historical info, but I've got nothing on the museum contents. Please feel free! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L2S1[edit]

Hello. I make a lot of categorization edits. Occasionally, when I stumble onto something really not right or just odd, I will check through the edit history to see who made the change. Today I started wondering why I keep seeing the username User:Look2See1 and found this thread. Wow! no wonder. Sounds like they made quite a mess.

I'm contacting you because you were involved and made a comment on that thread about blanket reverting.

Now I'm not exactly a huge fan of mass reverting banned users, but in that case, I think there should've been some kind of effort to do so. Well, for all I know, maybe there was and it became too tedious. They made over 200,000 over 8 years, so it wouldn't be easy to put a dent in that. However, I have noticed many of their categorizations to templates (where they made only 1,200) are 1) contrary to Wikipedia:Categorization#Template categorization and 2) still live and intact.

Would I be justified in systematically going through their template edits and fixing and reverting as needed? In cases where a straight-up revert is both possible and is the correct fix, would it be appropriate to mention in the edit summary, the edit was made by a banned user and/or link the ANI discussion?

Thank you in advance for your time. --DB1729 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hold myself out as any kind of expert on Wikipedia categorization -- I'm much more conversant with that of Commons, and it's annoying that they're not the same -- but I would say that if the categorization clearly seems wrong to you, and is contrary to a guideline, you'd be very justified in reverting, and in citing the guideline and the ANI thread, something on the order of "Categories by banned user contrary to X, please see Y." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I appreciate the advice. DB1729 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST[edit]

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for: 2022 Earth Day Edit-a-thon 2pm - 4pm EST (April 22nd) online via Zoom and in person This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Orphaned non-free image File:Busby Berkeley photo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Busby Berkeley photo.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. —howcheng {chat} 00:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]