Jump to content

User talk:Necrothesp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


May 2025

[edit]

Hello @Necrothesp, hope you are well.
Seeing your guideline about the articles of a soldier, I wanted to ask you a question. Is an article notable enough of a two star general who has the second highest award of the country? Along with that he has the Sword of Honour of the military academy he was trained. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe that all general officers should still be seen as notable, as they once were on Wikipedia. However, sadly in recent years this has been deprecated and notability of general officers has been judged on a case by case basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I created an article on a two star general - Muhammad Raza Aizad. He has the Hilal-i-Imtiaz, which is the second highest award. He also commanded one of the most important divisions of Pakistan Army, 11th Infantry Division (Pakistan).
Now, there has been an AfD stating the article should get deleted. It would be great if you give your opinion in the AfD, as I believe you have handled such situations previously. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC RE: MOS:POSTNOMS

[edit]

Howdy. Looks like the discussion regarding post-nominals in the lead has petered-out. Though it does appear that consensus moved in the direction of your contention, by my reading. Regardless, it would appear that an RfC is being requested and is required to move the discussion forward. As the original initiator, would you be willing to start such an RfC? MWFwiki (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI Request for Leena Nair

[edit]

Hi there Necrothesp,

A little while ago, you kindly made some changes and improvements to the Leena Nair article. I can see since then further changes have been and the article has now been reviewed and fully cited following my suggestions on the Talk page. However, I’ve noticed that there is still a neutrality dispute banner in place.

As I have a conflict of interest and am not able to remove it myself, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether you feel it would now be appropriate to remove the banner. Thank you very much for considering this, and for your help with the article. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

WP:MOSBIO has an RfC

[edit]

WP:MOSBIO has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. MWFwiki (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postnoms

[edit]

There is an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#h-RfC_Regarding_MOS:POSTNOM-20250514001000 which may be of interest. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Crawley Quinn

[edit]

Hi there. I see you moved the page Josephine Crawley Quinn to Jo Quinn as more common. I'm not sure the new name is more common (at any rate as an author and public figure), so have suggested reverting at WP:RM. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of the repeated personal attacks in RM discussions

[edit]

You have on multiple occasions made comments such as The purpose of disambiguation is to assist users, not to cater to the smugness of Wikipedia insiders (e.g. here) or Disambiguation is intended to help users, not stoke the egos of a handful of Wikipedia insiders (e.g. here). I interpret these comments to mean that users such as myself who are making good-faith arguments at invoking the WP:SMALLDETAILS aspect of article title policy in RM discussions are "smug" and/or are being egotistical. These are ad hominem personal attacks and I've had quite enough of them.

More broadly, it is painfully clear you strongly disagree with WP:SMALLDETAILS in all cases. That's a perfectly valid opinion, but is in disagreement with community consensus as reflected by policy. Making comments such as these in individual RM discussions, rather than articulating why the policy shouldn't apply (or be applied differently) in each specific case, ultimately leads to a lack of consistency in article titles (where RM outcomes depend on who participates and if such simple "votes" are given undue weight by RM closers) and therefore your comments are simply disruptive. Please revisit WP:RMCOMMENT; simple comments against policy are not arguments at all. If you feel so strongly against WP:SMALLDETAILS and/or feel it no longer reflects community consensus, start a RfC to that effect and stop turning individual RM discussions into battlefields in your war against it.

An administrator and long-tenured user such as yourself should do better, and I am strongly considering starting a WP:RECALL poll. I also hope you respond to Erik's inquiry at Talk:Bypass_Road_(film)#Ruquested move 1 May 2025. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks here. I'm merely making a comment about the purpose of disambiguation. It is intended to assist all users rather than to cater to a handful of editors who are au fait with Wikipedia procedures (and I would note that many editors agree with me on RM discussions). It is not in any way aimed at any specific editors. I'm sorry you misinterpreted it as such, but if you are unhappy with it then I will phrase differently in future. I have no desire to upset anyone and that was certainly not my intention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: I'd like to tag along with that sense. I've run into Necrothesp at several INCDAB move requests, and see the same thing you mention here, there. Not one of their comments has been even remotely supported by policy, and every one, such as Partial disambiguation is never a good idea, goes against sitewide consensus. If you started a recall poll, I would most likely !vote support at this moment. Necrothesp, please actually reference policy in your RM arguments in the future, rather than railing against PAGs with consistent support. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it "goes against sitewide consensus" I really would be interested to hear why nine times out of ten the RM seems to be decided in favour of my opinion. I'm clearly certainly not the only editor expressing these opinions. I would also point out that there is no "law" against expressing an opinion in discussions. I'm afraid this really does look a little like sour grapes. We are allowed to disagree in a discussion, you know. That's why we have discussions. If everything was as cut and dried as you seem to think it is then we wouldn't need them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that this idea that administrators can't express opinions is a bizarre one, although I've sadly heard it before (strangely, always from editors who have disagreed with me or another admin in a discussion and apparently don't like it!). Can you point to any of my actions as an admin that are contrary to what I'm supposed to do as an admin? Admins are just editors who are given additional tools. They still have all the same rights to express an opinion as any other editor and this is not relevant to their status as an admin unless they use those tools to advance their opinion, which I have most certainly not done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, you can start by removing "not policy-based" as they smugly say from your user page. I certainly considered it a personal attack when you replied to my comment as "pander[ing] to the smugness of Wikipedia insiders". If someone were to open a recall petition, I would happily support it. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, is any of this relevant to my actions as an admin? No, it is not. You just don't agree with me. That's your prerogative, but it is also mine and has no relevance whatsoever to my admin status (as you really should know, given you're one yourself). If you considered what I wrote a personal attack then you clearly did not read it properly - it was obviously a general comment about the difference between insiders who know the conventions and the general readership who do not. Please stop these attempts at bullying right now. I am entitled to my opinion. You are entitled to yours. The fact I am an admin is neither here nor there. Incidentally, I find it rather mysterious that two other editors who happen to disagree with something I have written have arrived on my talkpage out of the blue after another editor has left a similar comment. Care to explain why you suddenly decided to come here eight months after the RM you mention? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, incivility (even in a non-administrative actions) is an administrative conduct violation. Incivility is the main thing addressed in Wikipedia:Administrators § Administrator conduct. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no incivility, given none of these are personal attacks. They are generalised comments and I have already said above that I have no wish to upset anybody. The only incivility I can see is related to the comments and borderline threats that have been left on my talkpage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

Interface administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

readded L235

Oversight changes

readded L235

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recall poll

[edit]

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Necrothesp for you to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA).

You can provide a statement by editing the page's code and removing the comment markup around the Response section above the Discussion section. Should the petition reach 25 extended confirmed signatories within 30 days, you may initiate an RRfA during the next 30 days, and if you do not initiate an RRfA within a reasonable time frame, bureaucrats will have the discretion to remove your administrator privileges.

An RRfA has a threshold of 60% for an automatic reconfirmation and 50% for a bureaucrat discussion. Before the RRfA begins, you may opt to run in an administrator election with a 55% threshold if one is occurring within 30 days. For further information, please consult the administrator recall process page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, I have closed the recall petition above early because both of the editors who supported it have agreed to withdraw it for the time being. Mz7 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator civility standards and Necrothesp. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet chief petty officer

[edit]

Unless you're planning on nominating this stub for deletion, why would you eliminate the formatting for "see also" and "references", which are needed for future expansion as an article? If you want me to nominate this for deletion, then I can do it after my holiday / vacation, next week. If you made a simple mistake, then please revert back. If you had another reason, please don't use rollback, because it wasn't obvious. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no point adding empty sections! When do we ever do that? Yes, it would be good if it was sourced, but until it is then adding a section is pointless. And "See also" is only used occasionally anyway, so it's a completely unnecessary addition. I honestly don't see how this wasn't obvious. It looked like a mistaken addition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced AfD vote

[edit]

Hi, I think you meant to put this !vote in the AfD, but it has ended up at the bottom of the deletion sorting page instead. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's weird. Don't know how that happened. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hi I think this should happen: Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes to Lady Jane Fellowes and Maie Casey, Baroness Casey and Maie Casey, Lady Casey because of consistency and it will in line. RugbyFan88 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC) Also I want to have another go at having them listed.[reply]

Admiral hyphens

[edit]

Just wanted to explain my reversion of your edit to Peter Hammersley. The Gazette has not used hyphens in reporting RN admiral ranks since 1967 (see eg. this February 1967 page which uses them and this June 1967 one which does not. I've tried to keep to this convention when writing articles. I must admit, I don't know if this is reflected in other sources though. Happy to reconsider my approach if they contradict this, any ideas? - Dumelow (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, hyphens continued to be commonly used in ranks until the 1990s. Of course, good English suggests they still should be! It's not a big issue though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a previous move

[edit]

Hi, I came across The Sister: The extraordinary story of Kim Yo Jong, the most powerful woman in North Korea.. It appears a stray trailing period ended up in the title when you moved it back to the RM decided title a bit ago. I can't fix it myself since the target redir has multiple revisions (but I'll file at RM/TR in a few days if you can't get to it). Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. Fixed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A question...

[edit]

Hello
I notice you do work at Requested Moves and I was needing some advice, if you don’t mind me asking. (I have a feeling our paths have crossed somewhere along the line; I trust it was positive!)
I came across some pages recently that had been boldly moved which I was unhappy with, and which I was unable to revert (per BRD) as they had been done using page mover privileges. In the ensuing discussion I requested that the page mover self-revert (as required by WP:PMR) but this was declined; so I am wondering what to do next. This isn’t really a technical request, and it is hardly uncontroversial, but I feel strongly that if it goes to a RM it should be from the status quo ante; that the move to the present titles be justified to an RM panel, rather than a move back to the previous titles (also if in the case of no agreement the pages should stay where they were, not where they are now). I also think that if page move privileges have rules attached, then that should mean something. Any suggestions? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's usual in this case to open an RM request per usual. If you make the case that you believe the articles should never have been moved in the first place then this will be taken into consideration by the contributors and closer. It has certainly been the result in such cases in the past that a no consensus result ends in the page being moved back to the original title if the closer feels it to be appropriate. Alternatively, you could certainly list them on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. If another editor doesn't agree that this a technical request then they can move them to "Contested technical requests" and you can then take them to a full RM as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice, that is reassuring to know. It looks like the standard RM is the best option. I shall have to put some thought into how to phrase it, though! Anyway, thanks again: Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Enjoy the break! Moonraker12 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

readded Euryalus
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

readded AmandaNP
removed SQL

Oversight changes

readded AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
  • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Law enforcement in Portugal

[edit]
Notice

The article Law enforcement in Portugal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Prior notice given to appropriate projects.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Necrothesp. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

added Toadspike
removed

CheckUser changes

added asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Postnomials

[edit]

If you take a look at MOS:POSTNOM it states "... post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." That seems pretty clear. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has only recently been added and is still highly controversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise it was new and controversial. It's not worth falling out with decent fellow editors over that so I'll avoid such changes. Lots of other improvements to do.... 10mmsocket (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not altogether opposed to it, but only so long as there's an infobox where the information can be shown. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

[edit]

Hello, I would like to inquire about the process for removing a company’s Wikipedia page. On behalf of the company’s representatives who do not wish for the page to remain, I am seeking guidance on the necessary steps to have the page removed. If any verification or additional information is required, we are prepared to provide the necessary documentation. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer. Thank you Orbykut (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AfD on how to propose an article for deletion. However, please note that it is not up to the company whether or not Wikipedia has a page about it. If it is notable then it can have a page. And notability is decided at AfD. What is the article? I can advise on whether it would be worth nominating it for deletion or whether it is almost certain to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing negative about the company in the Wikipedia article. But the company doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. Is there anything that can be done about this? Orbykut (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only as I have already said. It is not the company's decision. We do not remove articles on either people or organisations simply because they don't want to be on here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If the company's information is in the public domain and it is considered to be notable enough for an article under our notability guidelines then that's all that counts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp see User talk:SimplyLouis27#Need help and the addition info posted there. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Appin (company) looks notable enough for an article to me. There are certainly plenty of sources out there. It would almost certainly be kept at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Attorney General

[edit]

Just FYI when you made this page move [1] you failed to move the associated talk page. I've moved it for you.[2] Just figured I'd let you know so it doesn't happen again (it happens to the best of us ☺️). estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Robert Bray (British Army officer) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOBTITLES

[edit]

Hello again, how do you reason that a "unique title" (warranting capitalization) is "one held by one person at one time", citing the example of POTUS or prime minister of the United Kingdom, when these examples are explicitly listed in MOS:JOBTITLES as contravening the argument you're trying to make (ie. when preceded by "the" "president of the United States" and "prime minister of the United Kingdom" should be uncapitalized). And actually, upon further reading of the MOS, uniqueness is not a reason to capitalize the title to begin with, so even if "Attorney General of New York" were a unique title, then it should be when uncapitalized preceded by a definite article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably need to reread MOS:JOBTITLE. It doesn't say what you seem to think it does. You will note that Attorney General of New York is capitalised in the title; it should therefore also be capitalised in the first line. This is our usual usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do I? I think you do. MOS:JOBTITLES reads:
" They are capitalized only in the following cases:
  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
  • When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the President, not the president (referring to Donald Trump).
  • When referring to an office or title itself, (as King of France); is not plural (Kings of France); is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article) (the King of France, former King of France), and is not a reworded description (Head of Government of France). " (emphasis my own)
Ie. if preceded by a definite article, a title should not be capitalized. You will note that President of the United States and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom are capitalized in their article titles, but not in their first sentences, as these are again explicit examples of MOS:JOBTITLES. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles have certainly been changed since last time I looked at them. I personally think it looks bloody stupid in the first line (and it's ridiculous that it doesn't match the case of the article title), but whatever. Not worth arguing about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Necrothesp&oldid=1324058637"