User talk:HouseBlaster

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster, I noticed that while Category:Bilateral relations of the State of Palestine was moved, its uses were not replaced. Can this be done via a bot? Would you also be able to move Category:Palestine–Ethiopia relations to Category:Ethiopia–Palestine relations, this is the standard order (already used for the main article Ethiopia–Palestine relations). Thanks, CMD (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, Category:Bilateral relations of the State of Palestine seems to have been sorted now? The bot moves the category first and then corrects uses, so there is always some "lag time" before all uses are corrected. As for Category:Palestine–Ethiopia relations, it has been proposed for speedy renaming and will be moved in a couple of days absent objection. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CMD (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi --75s.bottman2 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love engineering. --75s.bottman2 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 75s.bottman2, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to contribute to engineering topics, you might want to join WikiProject Engineering. They maintain a list of "stub" articles which have to do with engineering which need expansion. Let me know if you need additional help! Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster. I'm just wondering if you can provide a bit more detail on your rationale was for closing the merge discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Category:International airports by country please? I'd challenge whether 3 comments (1 opposed, 1 supporting and one referring to a 14 year old discussion constitutes consensus). Consensus may change over time and it would be much better to base the decision on current views.

Unfortunately I was not aware that this discussion was even running until after it was closed, nor do I recall seeing it listed on relevant wikiprojects (although this may have happened and I missed it). I did review the 2011 discussion that was referenced. I note that there was some discussion at the time as to whether an International Airport was something that was just a name applied for marketing, or if there is an actual difference and a hierarchy (as per International_Airport#Naming). I also note that in Australia (one of the affected categories), Airports do have to be designated by the government as International gateways to call themselves International Airports. The merging of the categories has removed this distinction, which has been quite topical recently regarding slot limits and flight caps to certain airports.

Given the above, I think there has not been nearly enough discussion here to say there is clear consensus. Would you consider reviewing the decision with a view to relisting it and tagging with for WP:AVIATION to generate further discussion please? Dfadden (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dfadden! So, I disagree with the way you counted heads: Marcocapelle and Aidan721 both supported the nomination, even if they used different bolded words to do so. 3–1 discussions generally required very strong arguments from the one dissenter to get to no consensus territory. The discussion was also advertised to WP:AVIATION (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts#CfD), and referencing discussions in the past generally means something along the lines of I agree with both the consensus reached at the time and the rationale, not I agree that is precedent which can never be challenged in the future. That all being said, you wish to present additional arguments, so I am happy to reopen and relist. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-- I too believe the lack of discussion is a huge problem at Categories for Discussion. Things are closed by bots with very little input. Sadly there seem to be very strong opinions there that lean towards closing categories and merging things. Its not very open to discussion. The environment appears to leave very few people willing to contribute there and take part in the conversations. I feel your pain @Dfadden Nayyn (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I disagree with most of what you said (number of participants etc are a matter of perspective), but I will correct the factually error in your comment: A human is always the one to close the discussion, and review the arguments made; the bot merely implements the result of the discussion. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the relist. I have now provided a comment that includes supporting evidence of why arguments made in the previous discussions 14 years ago are not applicable to the proposed course of action. While you may not agree with the way I "counted heads", I would like to point out that per WP:XFD and WP:VOTE, deletion discussions are not a vote. Consensus is not based on a headcount alone, but by careful consideration of different perspectives and the strength of arguments considering evidence and wikipedia policy. I am sure you are aware of this and making decisions in good faith (it's a thankless task). But there is no rule that says these discussions have to be closed after 7 days if there haven't been any strong or compelling cases put forward. I think Nayyn's frustations also speak to rhe same point - well reasoned and thought out arguments can take time to articulate and it can be easy to miss the chance to contribute when they are closed so quickly. Anyway, thanks again for the relist and opportunity to throw in my 2c. Peace.Dfadden (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just some musings; reply if you wish, but no reply if expected :)

I do not think "Relist in the hopes of getting quality participation" is a sustainable strategy, and I doubt relisting would've caught your attention (I presume you saw the changes on your watchlist). I wish we had a better way to notify editors of articles of category changes, but we don't short of instructing a bot to notify the talk page of every proposed change to categories. I highly doubt such a bot would find consensus, but Wikipedia has been getting better at trying new things as of late. Who knows?

If you had said before I closed the discussion, "please give me a couple of days; I want to give an argument", I would have happily granted that request. You are also absolutely correct there is no rule that discussions need to be closed after seven days – sometimes they sit for months, usually because there has been a lot of discussion but very little agreement – but the standard thought process is that a week is the right balance between "the wiki way" (WP:BOLD, immediate action) and deliberating everything carefully (as is necessary when you need to exercise the ability to delete things).

Again, feel free to respond to all, none, or some of this. Merely wanted to share some of my thoughts on your own thoughts. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 09:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to reply with your thoughts. You are absolutely correct about notification coming via my watchlist. It really is a bit of a wicked problem and I dont know of an easy solution. You may have given me a few days extra to make an argument, but then again, how would I have known you would be the one to close the discussion to ask for that in the first place? In any case, i feel the onus should be on the nominator to provide a detailed rationale and notify as many interested/involved parties as possible to generate quality discussion. Bots are an interesting idea. I'm not sure how feasible they would be here either?

What I do know is that many of us work full time and have life commitments off wiki. We are lucky if we get 1 day a week to dedicate our Wikipedia hobby. If I have multiple projects on the go it's easy to miss things, even when they are on relevant noticeboards, simply for lack of time to check. I take your point about balancing the bold against endless circular discussion. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, but I think 7 days is too short in most cases - WP:DEADLINE still applies to CfDs as it does to AfDs.

Thanks again for the reply! Dfadden (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HouseBlaster,

We seem to be running into problems with speedy renames. Like this category redirect was created by you but it was not supposed to be a category redirect, the target category was supposed to be moved to this category title. Same with Category:2025 events in Bangladesh by month which was supposed to be moved to Category:2025 in Bangladesh by month (I think) and instead this category is a redirect to back to this category with the CFD tag. Most of these problems seem to be cause by the CFD bot though. I've come across a lot of categories that were supposed to be moved and instead the bot or editors just created new categories without moving these pages so I've deleted the old categories but that's not the way it should be working.

Thanks for any help you can provide in CategoryWorld. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So generally the point of these redirects is to get things out out Special:WantedCategories (which only updates daily and has a hard cap of 5,000 pages) and into CAT:NESRC (which, obviously, has neither of those limitations!), while we wait the two days for a WP:CFDS to process. I suppose we could create a new template for this niche purpose which populates a third maintenance category, to be deleted per G6 when the move is ready to be made. The template would explain this to the passer-by so they know what exactly is happening with the category and an invitation to db-g6 it once the thing is ready to be overwritten. Is that a nice solution? HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check on Category:2025 events in Bangladesh by month and Category:1994 events in Bangladesh by month and the "not-empty" category redirects you created? Something is wrong here. THank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the way {{Month events in country category header}} works, the contents were moved before the categories themselves were moved. The categories are due to be renamed once someone gets around to processing the CFDS nominations (two days have passed), at which point the the two categories you will no longer be empty. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to recommend me some administrators to contact at this time? This is due to numerous users adding copyvio photo(s) to the article, Scott Bessent, when there are zero images through Wikimedia of the subject that are in the public domain or display Creative Commons licenses.

Thanks, Executive20000 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would have addressed this on the talk page of the article, but it will not allow me to create new topics on it. Executive20000 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made a little oopsie there, because I didn’t even know that you were an administrator. Apologies. Executive20000 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Executive20000: Don't worry about it! I don't advertise that fact one my talk page (though perhaps I should), so it makes sense you would miss it. Removing obvious copyvios is an exception to the three-revert rule, but make sure you cite that you are claiming an exemption. I have added a note visible only to page editors telling them not to add the image. I have also added the page to my watchlist, to monitor the page. Finally, if you ever need to find an active admin and I am not around, you can use this tool to find a recent active admin. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 03:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for this. Executive20000 (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For always being so lovely and kind and a great Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there , I need to remove an incorrect photo of an Indian revolutionary and add a correct image of him, as a student of history , this issue bugs me significantly as people making popular videos about Tatya Tope use the incorrect wikipedia image of him. The image used in Tope's page is of Jwala Prasad (when he was arrested) and not of Tope, this should be corrected for solving the obvious confusion and in respect to the freedom fighters. This Incorrect Image has made it onto lectures and videos on the subject which is really bad and the sad part is it is an easily fixable blunder. --Swapnil Chanpuriya (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swapnil Chanpuriya! It looks like the image at Tatya Tope claims to be a photo of "Tantya Tope". Do you have a higher quality image of Tatya Tope? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 15:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in July, you were given the order to delete Template:HCMMLS because Jonesey95 said in the discussion that HCMC Metro had 1.5 lines so they didn't need line symbols. Now that we have them, can I bring back the aforementioned page? Huy1984 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable – you have my blessing to recreate the template, as has already occurred ;) Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 15:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Huy1984 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleted my useless categories (old news but still) - Nail123Real (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write about myself --MSNRNK-613 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. See the guideline on writing an autobiography. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months. I have written and contributed mostly successfully to various different topics and also brought up my edits over 600. I ask you to now please let me edit on Azerbaijani topics again. I had two problems there when I unknowingly edited on Azerbaijani topics, I apologize for it again and promise to not repeat it. 🙏 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't quite been three months (we have a couple more days until we have reached that point). However, I am setting that aside and treating this on its merits. I will review your contributions and get back to you shortly. I am inclined to grant the appeal and narrow your topic ban to only the conflict itself, but note that consistent non-neutral editing would mean we have to reinstate the full topic ban. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 22:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viceskeeni2: Alright. Because it is a conditional unblock, you have to agree to this new topic ban. It permits you to edit Armenian and Azerbaijani topics, but you remain forbidden from talking about the relationship between those two countries. It is subject to a "trial" period: Any uninvolved administrator may reimpose the broader topic ban (under the contentious topic designation) if there are any issues with your editing, so be careful.

Viceskeeni2 (talk · contribs) is banned from editing topics related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, broadly construed. This ban supersedes their earlier conditional unblock and may not be appealed before 18 May 2025.

Do you accept this? Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Viceskeeni2 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I have left a note at your talk page to make it official. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 06:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case you could use some feedback or were second guessing anything, that message was fine. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Floq :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 01:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]