User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Hovercards prefs

Hello, you may want to participate and help publicize the voting for Hovercards preferences here. Thanks! --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160519

Orphaned non-free image File:Team Melli Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Team Melli Logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160520

Hey

Didn't you read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposal:_prolong_period_of_postponing_deletion_of_empty_categories_from_4_days_to_14_days before making the change? It said to change a few related pages as well, and inform bot editors. You didn't change two of the three related pages, which I just did. Did you inform bot editors? Debresser (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Debresser:I posted at Bot Owner's Noticeboard, Twinkle, and a specific bot mention at the empty categories category. I edited the speedy deletion policy page and the speedy delete template. I guess I missed something then. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, all is well then. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160524

Clarification wanted in regards to Citations

I am searching for mention of a Monk in Books. I have found few books which refer to him and have added them as citations. I also found many books where he is mentioned in the resources section in reference to his book. My question is can these also be used as a citation for the book mentioned in the wikipage. Eg. "These authors used this book as a resource." Will this be considered a valid citation? Please assist Mcolombowala (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Mcolombowala:OK, help me out here. You found a book, say Boof by Alma Bop, and in the resources section, Bop recommends that people also read Snarf by Vindar Hep? If that's the case, you should get a copy of Hep's book before you cite it so you know what's in it. If you're unable to get a copy of Hep's book, you could possibly list it as a see also, or you could list it on the talk page and note that you weren't able to find a copy.

That said, I'm not quite clear what a resource section of a book would contain. Is this section a list of sources? Or more like recommended reading?

Finally, I do urge you to find books that have more than a mention of him. Once you find book that discuss this monk in detail, remove the citations to books that merely mention him.

I hope this helps. Reply to clarify if it doesn't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: I understand the point that if it is passing mention in a book with say 150 pages it is not worthy of being cited.

If it all sounds too complicated, let it be as I am not using it now.

It is more like if book X was cited in book Y (to mean book Y author used material from book X in writing his book. It is normally an acknowledgement at the end of most books as a resource.) Thus it is mentioned only once but the material from book X may have appeared multiple times in book Y (or not). I was thinking that it would add credibility to book X as book Y Author has used book X in course of writing his own book.

Anyway I have read the books which has been cited and some can be read as ebook preview. I have also mentioned specific quotes which are relevant from the books I cite. Mcolombowala (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Mcolombowala, from what I'm reading, I would say that you should cite both books. I recommend that you use the {{cite book}} template, or you can use the visual editor cite option, enter the URL, and the visual editor should fill in all the author and title details for the book automatically (this doesn't always work, so you do need to check). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160603

Talk:Extinction debt

Hi, are you sure that the WikiProject templates here should have class=redirect, rather than on Talk:Dead clade walking? Thanks for the merge, Gap9551 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Gap9551, whoops. Fixed now. Thanks for telling me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• No problem, I didn't know if you were still moving things around so I wanted to make sure. Gap9551 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160604

Rfd2 has been updated

Per your proposal, I have updated {{rfd2}} and request that you (as a frequent participant in redirect discussions and user of this template) please keep an eye on it's use and functionality. If the change results in any errors, please revert it to it's previous stable condition immediately. Cheers :-) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverted almost immediately. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Fred Gandt, I agree with the reverted. We need a neutral close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160607

Lawyerdvrao listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lawyerdvrao. Since you had some involvement with the Lawyerdvrao redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160613

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160614

User talk:User:

Thanks for tagging CSD on the remaining ones at Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User:. Did you miss User talk:User:WikiImprovment78? Also, Guerillero has been notified of the newsletters page, so no need to tag that. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually just acted on it, thought it was consistent with actions you've taken. Thanks for the help. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160619

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Mrs Denis Thatcher

Can you explain your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Mrs Denis Thatcher as retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages? When I retargeted it to Margaret Thatcher#Early_political_career, Siuenti explicilty supported the new target and AngusWOOF implicitly supported it. Only the nominator, the IP (whose problem with lack of context at the current target was addressed by my edits), and Gorthian supported retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages. With a 3-3 split, it seems like it should've been a no-consensus or relist unless the closer believes that there were much stronger arguments from policy/guideline on any particular side. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Patar knightI'll re-read and get back to you later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Patar knight I read the discussion again. As far as a target for Margaret, your the only one who clearly unambiguously supported it. Siuenti voted for Denis and left a comment suggesting (but not endorsing) Margaret without striking the original vote, and AngusWOOF voted for delete and later asked how about the nuts and bolts of a Margaret target without endorsing it. On the other hand, Neve-selbert, 210.6.254.106 and Gorthian were explicit and clear about supporting Denis. So, given a choice between one clear vote for Margaret, three clear votes for Denis, and two unclear ones, the choice is clear. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to re-read. Siuenti actually !voted for both Denis and PM Thatcher, agreed with my take on primary topic, and then upon my addition of context to Thatcher's article said that "Since [the term "Mrs. Denis Thatcher"]'s now discussed specifically I support your proposed target", which seems like a clear indication of his preference. AngusWOOF agreed that the PM was the primary topic, did not oppose the new target, and at no point indicated support for retargeting to Denis. So just counting !votes, the split for retargeting to Denis is 3/3.

However Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the discussion surrounding the relevant guidelines should be taken into account. Siuenti, AngusWOOF, and I all explicitly backed the view that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was the PM, while the nominator did not, with arguments that were frankly, ahistorical strawmen. The IP also implicitly backed the PM as the primary topic by citing WP:COMMONNAME, and their main concern was that one of the purposes of redirects was for subtopics of existing articles while there was then no context at PM Thatcher's article. Gorthian's retarget !vote was based on the reasoning of Siuenti and the IP, which I would interpret as seeing PM Thatcher as the primary topic but supporting retargeting to Denis because of the context issue, since Siuenti did not elaborate on retargeting but did express belief that PM Thatcher was the primary topic. Since my edits to PM Thatcher's page did add context, the guideline forming the basis of the IP and Gorthian's !votes would also be called into question, since he !voted per the other two. With all this uncertainty around all the votes except for me and the nominator, I think it would have been preferable to relist and ping/contact users or close as no-consensus rather than close as you did.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• You are possibly wrong about Siuenti (who was incredibly unclear and confusing on their views) and definitely wrong about Anguswoof. I looked again, actually using my find function on my browser to look for the word Woof, and their initial delete vote is their only explicit view presented. Woof never said that you should target to Margaret. Quote where they say so and prove me wrong. Thus, 3-2, or maybe 3-1, with either one or two views that count as "other".
• As far as primary topic, this is a very atypical situation, and primary topic policy isn't all that helpful. This is what the retarget to Denis voters were getting at. The sillyness of the hatnote demonstrates perfectly - Mrs Denis Thatcher redirects to someone else for other Mrs Denis Thatchers see Denis Thatcher - while redirecting to Denis Thatcher doesn't require a hatnote at all (and if it has one, I'll delete it now).
• Anyway, blah blah blah, you haven't yet made the case to me that the consensus matches what you think. And you are still the only person who explicitly requested a target to Margaret. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• While Siuenti's reply of "I support your proposed target" can technically be unclear, when it's in response to "Would you prefer to retarget ot [sic] keep the redirect?", the intent is clear. AngusWOOF saying "I'll agree that she is primary topic" is explicitly backing me on PM Thatcher being the primary topic. AngusWOOF never supported retargeting to Denis despite having the opportunity to do so or to oppose my new target at the PM Thatcher page after he returned to the RfD after being pinged. It can be implied that he was okay with my target (especially after I implemented the hatnote that he mentioned in his reply) though deletion was still his preference. This is an even split between those who opposed retargeting to Denis and those who supported it, and even if you discount AngusWOOF, a 2-3 split should go to the strength of the arguments from policy and guidelines.
• The two guidelines in play here were the disambiguation guideline (which includes PRIMARYTOPIC) and the redirect guideline. Only the nominator disagreed with me on the primary topic issue, and the !vote of the IP (and backed by Gorthian) invokes COMMONNAME, which implies that he agrees that the PM is the primary topic, but his other concerns about the purpose of redirects overides that. So the consensus on which article is the primary topic is either 3-1 or 5-1 in favour of PM Thatcher. The IP's argument that redirects should quickly point readers to relevant encylopedic content was addressed by my changes to add the relevant encyclopedic context to PM Thatcher's page and change the target to that specific section. Your assertion here that the hatnote was silly leads me to actually consider taking this to DRV, since if you think that "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" redirecting to PM Thatcher is redirecting to "someone else", I don't think you've grasped the naming convention issue at the heart of the RfD. Hatnotes of this type are common (see: A Modest Proposal, Aphrodite, and Arnold Schwarzenegger) and explicitly recommended by our DAB guideline for sitiuations where there is a clear primary topic. In this case, the hatnote was not at the top and in a section, which WP:HATNOTE says is allowed.
• I never said that the consensus was to keep, my point was that because 1) the issues behind 2/3 of the pro-Denis !votes were addressed 2) the primary topic was recogznied as the PM by half and likely all but one of the !voters and 3) the ambiguity that you yourself assigned to some of the votes, the RfD would have benefited from relisting. Then you could ping the users involved to encourage them to clarify their views given the changed target and new information before making a more informed close when everyone's position was clear. Instead you have a close where you have to defend it by arguing ignorance of people's actual prefered positions.--- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Bumping this. If I don't hear back by tonight, I'll send this to DRV to try and get a relist. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Please link to this discussion if you do so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mrs Denis Thatcher

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mrs Denis Thatcher. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160711