Archive 1  · Archive 2  · Archive 3  · Archive 4  · Archive 5  · Archive 6  · Archive 7  · Archive 8  · Archive 9  · Archive 10  · Archive 11  · Archive 12  · Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16


I do believe that this, being a formal sanction with community consensus, needs to be logged at WP:Editing restrictions; or am I missing something? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I was told it was, Vanamonde93. Procedures change almost every year, so I'm honestly not certain. Best to overdo it than miss a step. -- llywrch (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, FWIW I am quite certain. I'd have gone ahead and done it, too, but I didn't want to tread on your toes, and I think it looks better when the closing admin logs the sanction...Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait. I misunderstood you; I thought you said it did not need to be logged. I did log it there. Or did I do it wrong? I added it to his talk page to ensure he was aware of what happened; as I wrote, best to overdo it. --llywrch (talk)
Ooh. My bad. I looked at your contributions before you logged it, and then was looking at a cached page where the transclusion had not updated. Apologies, and thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to worry. We're both just trying to do our best for the encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Uncovered possible copyright violationEdit

Hi Llywrch, I've discovered either a possible copyright violation or a page sourced to a Wikipedia mirror at Saint Claudia (identical to this site). I was wondering what to do. I posted about it (and the fact that article is abysmal) at the Christianity noticeboard yesterday but no response so far.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, @Ermenrich: that is an untidy little article. IMHO, while it is clear that it is drawn from the Catholic Online article, ours is clearly a paraphrase & not a copyvio. A bad paraphrase, & in need of some copy editing. (At least the equivalent article at the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia provides some references.) I would rewrite it, & provide a few more sources. If you still think it's a copyright violation, post something over at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Cider Riot or Cider Riot brawl?Edit

Curious, do you think there should be an article for Cider Riot or Cider Riot brawl (or similar? Cider Riot incident?) ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, At the moment I think we ought to wait & see how this develops. It could become a very notable incident & Gibson could end up doing serious time, or it might fizzle out into nothing if a judge decides to throw out the case. (Personally, I hope the judge throws the book at Gibson. He deserves it.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Llywrch, Gibson is a troll... Thanks for your reply. ---Another Believer (Talk) --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, it's not nice to make fun of people's appearances. ;-) llywrch (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hah! Unfortunately, his good looks are wasted. Also, I couldn't help myself... between company history, awards, reviews, and the brawl, I think there's something here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I added a link to that article since "cidery" isn't a familiar word. Until now, I'd guess it is like a brew pub but instead of beer/ale it produces cider, but the relevant articles suggest something different. If it's not too much trouble, Another Believer, could you do some in-person research & determine which article best defines it. (And feel free to have a glass for me.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got this place on my 'to do' list, but might be a while because I don't live in the immediate vicinity. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog BanzaiEdit

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I don't know if you still edit Ehtiopian topics but User:Shevonsilva, some of those Ethiopian sub stubs look a right stink in comparison to your lovely woreda articles. Can you sort them out or delete them if needs me? Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, my good evil Doctor. If you are well, I am well. Glad to hear from you.
I took a look at a couple of articles our fellow editor created, & while I haven't done more than correct the occasional typo or fix a link with those articles over the last 10 years, the fellow has definitely (as we say on this side of the Atlantic) tried to implant the dog with offspring. One of the reasons I gave up working on Ethiopian geographical articles was that although I had finally made some sense out of the local administrative subdivisions (known as woredas), the Ethiopian government decided to reorganize a number of them. And with my resources limited to what I can find on the Internet -- I have no inside contact with anyone there -- I was unable to provide more than a few updates & corrections before giving up in frustration. Add to this the only people who have a clue about the local boundaries are the Ethiopians (1) who often have a conflict of interest in providing information, & (2) whose English is often substandard, & the result is the growing mess we now have. (It appears the Somali Region is the worst.)
Something needs to be done to clean all of this up. I really wasn't planning to work on these articles -- I've devoted what spare time my daughters allow me to gathering together information on the Tao Te Ching, which is also in sad shape -- but I might have to be the one to do it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah it can get really tricky when they create new areas and change the boundaries. It really messes everything up! Thanks for all the work you did on them anyway! Your articles are always welcome on the challenge pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge etc! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with a non-controversial page moveEdit

Hi Llywrch! I'm trying to move Das Eckenlied to Eckenlied (with redirect) because the German definite article shouldn't really be part of the name, as another user pointed out long ago. For some reason it won't let me do it. It's a completely non-controversial move, I made the page last year and just sort of unthinkingly included the article. Would you mind using your admin powers to help me?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, done! -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

GAR of Bengal famine of 1943Edit

Hello. This is spam, forgive me. I'm gonna go through various GAR pages and look for people who appear active. All I'm asking for is a review, not asking for any specific outcome (i.e., not begging for a KEEP). The GAR is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1. If you review and Delist, that's OK, so long as it gets a meaningful review...

The article is big, detailed and has a terrible history in various Content Review forums. In fact, it has been residing in Content Review Hell for a couple years now... In return for a review (not a specific outcome) I'll do any kinda gnomish or research work you wish. Forex, I love converting inconsistent referencing into {{{sfn}}}, regardless of article size. I also help with all the errors that show up as described User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. And so on. Thank you for reading this; forgive the intrusion. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way markEdit

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!Edit


After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure why I don't drop by here more often. I do love your sense of humor. And yes, I enjoy the history lessons too. When I first started (all those many moons ago), the honorable Bishonen, Iri, and several others would often point me in the direction of a particular back-story I should know. I think one of the first "lessons" I read was the whole User:Essjay situation. Shortly after that some of the Giano and some FT2 history as well. I read because I HATE sounding like an idiot (although I do it so well). Anyway - I do appreciate your time, replies, and humor - Best always, — Ched (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks! :-) llywrch (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive BarnstarEdit

  The Working Man's Barnstar

Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 6 reviews made a difference, as did your willingness to review particularly old nominations. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

  Hey, Llywrch. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
PATH SLOPU 03:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been 17 years. Some better than other years. -- llywrch (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit


Okey I found some pages with Errors in the Numbers so I Did the Math and fixed them. Alejxon (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Llywrch

I hope that things are going well with you. You may have noticed that someone with a grudge against you has posted a blank page purporting to be from you on the ArbComm elections nominations page.  

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Gog the Mild, it's just me testing the Wiki & finding bugs. -- llywrch (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Fair nuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ACE2019 nominationEdit

Hello Llywrch, there appears to be some technical issues with your WP:ACE2019 self nomination. Did you follow direction (v) on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates for creating your statements? — xaosflux Talk 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: -- Yes, at least I thought I did. But knowing my knack at finding bugs in computer software I appear to have found something wrong. -- llywrch (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to try to fix it for you. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I think I have fixed it. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man fixed it for you, looks like you are good now. Best wishes, — xaosflux Talk 23:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep. I can't help but find bugs no matter what I do. :-( llywrch (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


places in Ethiopia, Roman senators, and butting in

Thank you for hundreds of quality articles about Roman senators such as Avitus, hundreds of places such as Mojo, Ethiopia, historians such as William Miller (historian), news such as 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt, for GA reviewing, in service from 2002, for butting in now, - Geoff, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2308 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Always wondered if I'd get one of these. Thanks! -- llywrch (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 :) Adding my +1. And most glad to see you taking an interest in arbitration as well, however windmill-filled it may be. – SJ + 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Distributing riceEdit

Hi Llywrch, thanks for your answers to my questions; they're really inspiring! I especially liked this bit This diverts money that could have gone to nurture & further improve Wikipedia, used for activities such as providing training for volunteers in copyright law, defamatory speech, research skills, or even fund access to information.. The idea of using WMF funds to provide training to help editors specialize in topics like copyright and research is great and is something I would like to see flourish. It's not particularly relevant to ACE, so I'm bringing it up here, but have you ever thought about ways to bring that about? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes! I've tried to advocate for providing some form of benefits for Wikipedia/Wikimedia volunteers for a long time, but I've not been successful. Part of the reason is that I was unable to find how to present the idea to the Foundation in a way that they had to give it some kind of consideration. (The WMF is set up so that the employees can ignore us if they choose. They frequently establish the rules of engagement, & routinely deflect any comments they feel are "irrelevant." While this allows them to get work done without having to deal with every gadfly & troll with lame ideas, it also avoids any responsibility to the communities.) Part of the reason is that the heads of the Foundation (call them Educational Director or CEO) have failed to understand the needs of the communities. Sue Gardner was hostile to the very idea volunteers receive any form of financial aid from the Foundation; Lila Tretikov thought the MWF was solely a software non-profit; & Katherine Maher appears to be too busy travelling & meeting people to bother doing more than occasionally thinking about the volunteers, let alone ponder if we need anything. (I haven't yet gotten a feel for Ryan Merkley, the new COO. Beyond the fact he is surprisingly silent about what he wants to do as COO, let alone what he's done. In my experience, C-level types are always promoting themselves.) And part of the reason is that I'm just not very effective at agitating for a cause. So I've let this matter drop & focused on what I can accomplish.
And you're right that the ArbCom is not the medium to try to get any of these ideas implemented. That was never my intent. What I intend to do on the ArbCom is to show the Foundation that we can manage our affairs far better than they can, thus undercutting any attempt by the WMF to manage them for us. Obviously if they do take over managing disputes this will justify existing jobs, furnish a case to hire more Foundation employees, as well as make a case that the Foundation needs more money. However, if they are frustrated at attempting to assume these duties, maybe they will consider the services we've mentioned. I'm not seriously expecting that to happen, but given enough prods even the slowest & least intelligent animal will begin to move in the direction one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
That's quite a shame. Hopefully the idea gains some traction---I'll keep an eye out for opportunities. It seems editors have gotten their foot in the door through the Wikipedia Library which gives editors free access to paid databases. It would be nice to see that expanded. Maybe some kind of user group---like Art+Feminism---that would organize workshops for editors on copyright law or help coordinate access to sources. If you get on ArbCom you probably won't have a ton of time, but if you ever need a set of hands to help get these ideas off the ground, let me know! (Also, I didn't think your answer implied you thought ArbCom would be a venue to pursue this. I thought it was a very good answer that showed a dedication to the movement and community organization that would be a great perspective on ArbCom.) Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


I think you would make a fine ArbCom member, you have my support. Paul August 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Paul! -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Just a note: after your closing of the RfC here: Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#External_links last year, some editors now disagree about using it as a source in the articles. The discussion is at Talk:Gilo#Removal_of_ARIJ_sources, regarding edits like this. If you want to clarify your close? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You might want to note that the edit that the above user has linked to did not remove those ARIJ sources from the article. The misleading nature of her comment above is permeates her Wikipedia editing. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people who disappeared mysteriously: pre-1970, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Overton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Was Gurges an augur?Edit

Hi, Llywrch. After spending a little time separating republican augurs from imperial, I did a little curative work on the main Gurges article (the reason that there are two, if you don't recall, is that there's a scholarly dispute over whether the one who perished during his consulship in 265 BC was the one who had been consul twice previously, and whether either of them was the father of Verrucosus). Since they may have been the same person, I was about to add Category:augurs of the Roman Republic to the other article, but I noticed that it didn't mention him being an augur. I then looked at the one you were working with this morning, and the only thing about an augurship there pertained to Verrucosus having been appointed an augur in 265, the year of Gurges' death. So I'm wondering: is his augurship found in Broughton or one of the Roman historians, and simply not mentioned in his article; or is it an error due to the word being mentioned in the article in connection with his son? P Aculeius (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, P Aculeius. What I've been doing is adding Category:Augurs of the Roman Republic to the bios where the article explicitly states the person was an Augur. I'll admit that I was sloppy in a few places -- & it appears I was sloppy with the article on the consul of 265 BC -- but I looked into the matter no further than that. (From other indications, I suspect there are many more augurs out there, both Republican & Imperial. Probably need to do a word search on the inscriptions database to be sure.) So in the case of Gurges, I honestly don't know. My own opinion would be to go with what Broughton states, unless some subsequent archeological discovery proved otherwise. (And you have a copy of that book, unfortunately I don't.)
PS -- At a few points I encountered the old problem of where to draw the line between "Republican augurs" & "Imperial augurs". For example, what I did in the case of Lucius Sempronius Atratinus was to harmonize that cat with what his navbox said. I won't argue that this was the best solution, & won't revert if you disagree & change it back, but if you do, try to keep the relevant parts harmonized. I expect this point -- where to draw the line between the Republic & Empire for the various categories -- will need to be discussed by the Workgroup & arbitrarily set. (FWIW, I don't see this as an original research issue, just an administrative one. And even if we set a dividing line, because peoples' lives straddle that line we'll be forced to make case-by-case exceptions.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I can check Broughton. I only have volume I physically, but I found a PDF (not a terribly good one) of most of volume II... missing the end of the last year and all of what I believe is a substantial appendix—if I can find a good copy at an affordable price, I'll try to get one—and a PDF of volume III (apparently the same as the supplement). I think that in the case of people whose lives straddle the division between the Republic and the Empire, we should list them under both categories, where both apply. In the case of Atratinus, he became an augur under the Republic and presumably continued to be one in imperial times, so he should be included in both categories. However, he was only consul prior to the Battle of Actium and the granting of the title "Augustus" in 27 BC, so I think he would probably be considered a Republican consul. I'll have a look and see what adjustments I think should be made. Thanks for the prompt reply about Gurges; I'll check on that in Broughton. P Aculeius (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @P Aculeius:, I've checked in Jörg Rüpke's Fasti Sacerdotum (which is the reference work for Roman priests) and there is nothing for Gurges, so it's safe to remove the cat. Regarding Broughton, here is the pdf of volume II (with searchable text). The short 1960 supplement is available here. Broughton published a long supplement (called volume 3) in 1986, but unavailable at a decent price. T8612 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, T8612. That's quite a quality improvement in the pdf, not to mention a much smaller file size than the 37 MB scan I found! Although some of the typographic features in the original are helpful, such as small caps for names and small print for the notes—still, I'm astonished somebody retyped it all as a PDF! Unfortunately, while it completes 31 BC, it still is missing all those lovely appendices! I'm just going to have to buy a hard copy one of these days when I find one at a price that doesn't seem extravagant. I think I already have the 1960 supplement; wasn't sure volume III was substantially different, since on used book seller sites the descriptions are hard to compare, and last I looked I was pretty sure they were close to the same. As for Gurges, I already deleted the category based on Broughton. I figured, if I was wrong, somebody with better access to good sources could always correct me! P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It's always a pleasant surprise to find the exact information you need on the Internet. (Far too often, it's either a spammy site or embarrassingly out of date information. -- llywrch (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PSTEdit

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.
18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

Disambiguation link notification for December 19Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcus Plautius Silvanus (praetor 24), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Llywrch, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Birthday!Edit

Disambiguation link notification for December 29Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Roman governors of Bithynia and Pontus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaius Marcius Censorinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

TBAN violation?Edit

Does this his participation in this thread dealing with a passage in Tacitus's annals discussing Jesus's execution by Pontius Pilate constitute a violation of Paul Siebert's tban from Pontius Pilate broadly construed? If so, would you mind issuing a warning?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll look into this, Ermenrich. Thanks for the info. -- llywrch (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Llywrch, since Pontius Pilate is a topic that is not in a focus of my interest, I didn't pay must attention to the topic ban. However, now I am seeing that some people are trying to use this topic ban as a tool to win a content dispute in the area that is only remotely related to that topic. I find that unacceptable and, frankly, dishonest. In connection to that, I am contemplating a possibility to open the AN discussion of that topic ban. Indeed, if you look at this story as a neutral observer, the accusations that were put forward were totally laughable: I was literally accused of conducting long talk page discussions. All other accusations were factually incorrect. I asked peoples who falsely accused me of being incompetent to apologise, and informed them that their behaviour poses a serious danger to Wikipedia, so I am going to draw attention of ArbCom to that incident (which was probably not wise, but it is not prohibited by our rules), and that was the only reason why you banned me. I think that you had no right to do so, and I am going bring that issue to AN. However, I would prefer to discuss it with you first, because I still hope that we can resolve this issue ourselves without wasting other people's time. In connection to that, can you please explain me if you still honestly believe your action was correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take whatever action you wish. -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To make your life easier, let be remind you that the topic ban wording was "banned from Pontius Pilates article (and some related articles)". That was not a Pilates topic, so mentioning of Pilates name in a context of other articles is not a violation. In that sense, the context of that complain is interesting: the person who made the complain was asked to provide concrete counter-arguments, and instead of that, he decided to report me under a totally formal pretext. I don't think encouraging this type behaviour is in interests of the project as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I will state that I am planning to find a reliable source that does address your extreme skepticism -- although I would assume that the expert opinions of textual editors such as Henry Furneaux (who is cited in the article under discussion) would be sufficient to show you should not be so confident in your skepticism. However, I have other demands on my time at the moment, so I cannot properly respond to your comments here; again, you are free to continue the discussion at the talk page, or open a discussion at WP:AN/I about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Llywrch, additional sources will not resolve this content dispute, because the dispute is about some concrete article: we have different opinia on what this concrete author says. I present arguments and quotes demonstrating that the author does not see any historical value in the authentic Tacitus passage, another user says that the author confirms both authenticity and historical value. This other user provides no arguments except a complaint that I allegedly violated conditions of your ridiculous topic ban. The very fact that that user had chosen this shaky way is a demonstration of weakness of their position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to bring the ban issue to AN/I, I plan to discuss it at AN.. I want admins to check if the pretext of that ban was correct. However, I am reluctant to do so, for I think we would save a lot of time of many busy people is we managed to resolve this issue by yourselves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legio VII Claudia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucius Vipstanus Messalla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Good closeEdit

I liked the "community referral to Arbcom" option myself, but it didn't get enough support :-) Nice dissection of a potentially nasty RFC - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just happened to belatedly run across that close via the Admin newsletter today and thought I'd echo the positive thoughts. It was a very good breakdown of an RfC that ultimately reached very little consensus, your closing statement was an excellent summary. Any closing statement that ends with "Still, the hope persists." has to be disappointing on some level, but there was no other way! ~ mazca talk 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, IMHO one chief issue is that there is no simple way for a community process that slips between all the hazards: here be the rock of giving troublemakers a chance at vengeance, there the whirlpool of letting some unfairly get away with bad practices because they have influence, & further along are the shoals that any sanction to a Wikipedian who is acting in good faith -- whether or not an Admin -- is likely to lead to that person leaving the project. (For example, I contemplated a possible process where after 100 established Wikipedians sign a petition that admin loses the bit. Despite the fact a petition like this would indicate deep-seated discontent, it wouldn't work. Consider this: if 100 established Wikipedians signed a petition to take the bit from me, I'd very likely quit Wikipedia entirely due to the widespread dissatisfaction with my actions. Having even 20 of my peers announce in public they lost all confidence in me would be very demoralizing. And knowing that this could happen keeps me from making hasty or ill-considered decisions.) --llywrch (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Request help with new Council for WikiProjectsEdit

Hi. I am trying to create a forum where various WIkiProjects can exchange ideas and information about their best ideas, efforts, methods, and accomplishments. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. I tried to create an active exchange at WikiProject Council, but did not get very far when I tried to do so.

I would like to get some interested editors together who might be interested in helping with this idea, either with getting WikiProject Council moving again, or creating a whole new WikiProject to do so.

You can sign up to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editors Forum/Members. Right now, this page is a redirect to a draft in my user space; we will move it to the project space as soon as we have ten people signed up.

eventually, the goal would be to have a few people from a wide variety of WikiProjects and varioous topical areas, working together at WIkiProject Council, to help us create a forum and an exchange for ideas and information.

Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know. If you wish, you can simply comment on my talk page to let me know any comments or thoughts on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you close the ToU/Status Labs RFC please?Edit

Hi Llywrch, since you suggested snow-closing the Terms of Use enforcement against Status Labs RFC after three days or 100 comments, would you please do that? Doc James said he'd share it with the Board, and I hope Smallbones has made his sources aware of it (and if so I hope they confirm it's what they meant), but there's clearly no reason to keep asking for more comments at this point. I'm going to take it out of WP:CENT now. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT left me a note, so I'll chirp in here. A proper closing of this is pretty important. With 98 to 2, it shouldn't be difficult, but perhaps somebody could ask an arbitrator to do it, and since Llywrch voted he might not be the best. There's clearly no reason to keep it open over the weekend when people will be out in the real world having fun, but we might as well keep it open until noonish NY time Friday. Just my 2 cents. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
EllenCT I have no problem closing this RfC. However, as Smallbones points out it may appear to the WMF there is a conflict of interest here, that this does not represent the community accurately, & refuse to honor this request. (They may follow their habitual actions, & refuse to even acknowledge they received it.) Best to ask an uninvolved Admin. I did a quick check & noticed that neither Gyrofrog nor & Jmabel are Admins & they did not participate in the discussion. Maybe one of these would be interested in closing this RfC. (Likewise Liz was uninvolved in this.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure they aren't going to complain about who closed it. "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion," says WP:ANRFC. I just thought you wanted to because you had the clearest idea about when it should be closed. It doesn't matter to me now that it's off WP:CENT and it gets passed along by Smallbones to his sources. EllenCT (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I've closed it, since the consensus is overwhelming, and I can't imagine it changing. Llywrch, you say "neither Gyrofrog nor Jmabel are Admins"; not sure what you meant by that, I'm an admin. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. I didn't give my comment a final look-over, & forgot to change those words before saving. (Have I mentioned that I reserve the right to completely screw up my own edits?) -- llywrch (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for your compassion and out-of-the-box thinking at ANI. Regardless of how it plays out, I'm glad to see creative ways of resolving disputes. Hopefully it inspires more out of the box thinking! Wug·a·po·des 01:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the ANI thread referenced above is eligible to be auto-archived and it appears that the user in question is on your suggested Wikibreak. Could you please close the thread? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I meant to take care of that this morning, PST. Thanks for the reminder. -- llywrch (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for not seeing this before the thread was closed. I have been busy off-Wiki. Since the thread has already closed, I will go ahead and accept your offer. However, I am currently monitoring a situation at WP:ANI#Incivility help regarding block evasion. We're still waiting for an administrator response there.
Would it be too troublesome for me to file a Request for Closure there? There is a unanimous consensus that block evasion took place, and a unanimous consensus that bludgeoning/long term abuse took place and that the evidence for meat puppetry and IP socking is strong. However, because of the length of the discussion (and perhaps because of my involvement, after I was smeared in the discussion that was just closed), there still hasn't been an administrator response yet.
I'm not currently doing anything else on Wikipedia right now, due to time constraints. After that is closed and resolved, I can go over to User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks and request a 30-day block for the Wikibreak.
However, just so there's no misunderstanding, I still plan on filing a subsequent ANI or ArbCom report at some point after the Wiki-break. I have saved what I was typing in a Microsoft Word document, and I wasn't being disingenuous when I pointed out disruption. However, I can promise you that I will not confront TTN, Eagles247, Reyk, Piotrus, or any of the AfDs on the matter until said report is filed. DarkKnight2149 04:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)