Archives:

story ·music ·places

Today I remember a singer who impressed me on stage. - The image shows a wine leaf that changed colours to a bold pattern of red and greens, with the sun shining through it. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

today in memory of a friend who would have been 110, singing Brahms conducted by his son. --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have three biographies on the main page today, missa fourth one, nominated a fifth, that means little time for other matters. My places now includeLa Scala, - "see" music, Verdi three times, and twice inmy story! --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support in November! - OnSt. Cecilia's Day - patron saint of music - I remembera composition by Benjamin Britten, and havea woman on the main page who illustrated songs, with a sense of humour. My music features our latest choral Abendlob, with English music. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... At some userspace pages relating to old edits atUser talk:Chris mahan andUser:Chris mahan. This is an example wheremy own page protection from 2009 has come back to bite me. I need to update the former page because it's no longer correct, similarly tothis edit of mine; see the links relating to this user atUser:Nemo bis/Bug 323 revisions/positive rev user (for examplethis edit used to be attributed to the username "Chris_Mahan" but is now under the username "Christopher Mahan"). Also, contrary to my log message, this user's current account is no longer an admin; I made the protection long beforethe admin inactivity policy was implemented. I don't think the protection is necessary now anyway (and would drop it myself if I could), but it could also be dropped to extendedconfirmed or something. I don't have any need to editUser:Chris mahan, but ... it's just the principle of the thing. The user/talk page are on my watchlist so I'll keep a metaphorical eye on them. This seems like far too much of an oddball request for the regular channels.Graham87 (talk)12:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging@Tamzin:, as you seem to be active at the moment.Graham87 (talk)12:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:) --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)12:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks muchly.Graham87 (talk)12:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten aboutthis Phabricator comment from 2019 and had obviously never properly taken it in to account at the time.Graham87 (talk)12:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you forgot about a "temp" page back in 2016Talk:Uranus/Archive 4/TempPolygnotus (talk)01:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Ta for the note ... turns out I dropped the ball on this one, rather than forgetting about it as such. The main discussion leading to the creation of that page wasTalk:Uranus/Archive 3 § Archiving (also seethis AN discussion andthis message on my talk page). I'll history-merge the temp page to archive 4, now that that archive exists, because that's a harmless action. Pinging the people involved who are still active:@Moonraker12 andSerendipodous:.Graham87 (talk)05:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Lol I just founda "temporary" undeletion I never undid from 2011 atEmpirical solution of the Monty Hall problemEmpirical solution of the Monty Hall problem. Could some kind admin please undeleteTalk:Empirical solution of the Monty Hall problem for me, since the article history is there,now in its complete form for the first time? But then I was tempted to nominate the thing for deletion under G6 ... or maybe RFD, but that felt like overkill.Graham87 (talk)14:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}15:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Wikiarcheology sounds like a complicated hobby!Polygnotus (talk)17:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: It can be. Other times I've acciddentally changed content while doing wiki-archaeology arethis situation with the disability etiquette page in 2008 (which I notice wasjust deleted properly) andthis one atTheorem-provingTheorem-proving in 2009 (which I also didn't know about until recently ).Graham87 (talk)00:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking atWoolwich Polytechnic (disambiguation) onWikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/26 and realized the history fromWoolwich Polytechnic (disambiguation) would overlap the deleted history ofWoolwich Polytechnic. If merged then the was subsequently deleted then undeleted this would leave intermingled overlapping diffs of parallel versions.

I looked to see what others were doing but most cases with deleted histories are not overlapping or just redirects so would not cause the mess that the Woolwich Polytechnic example would. Then I realised that creating these pages with overlapping histories and deleted histories can surely happen all the time if a page is deleted then any autoconfirmed user could move a page over the top.

I thought one way to deal with these would be to split the history and leave the old history deleted/redirected as a draft to end up like when dealing with a request to delete a redirect with substantive history. So I guess the question is although having pages with overlapping history in the deleted edits must happen a lot with normal deletions and moves, what is the way we should handle these cases where we can see the possibility for future parallel versions mixed together?KylieTastic (talk)11:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Yeah, I'd move the deleted versions somewhere else. Or if they actually belong with another article, move them there. If they're not important at all, you could move them to a /temp page or something. It's unlikely but not impossible that the revisions would be mixed together by accidental undeletions these days.Graham87 (talk)11:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think it's always worth doing or is it not a worry in cases like3 World Trade Center where there are 4 redirect edits. Also last night I did find an example were there were a couple of deleted non redirect edits someone had left overlapping. Do you think the rule should be always try to split; only if there are non-redirect overlapping deleted edits; or only if a 'substantive' overlapping history? Also I realised I should have thought about this deeper sooner - so is it worth me going back and checking if any I've done before need the deleted history spiting out?KylieTastic (talk)12:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I'd say only split them if there's a substantive overlapping history. And how different the overlapping history is from the existing edits should also be a factor in how concerned you should be about accidental undeletion.Graham87 (talk)12:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed all of my past merges where the target had deleted content and the only one I think may be an issue is4 World Trade Center. I'm not sure what is best this this one as it appears there was another cut-paste move at 07:33, 24 December 2011 from what is now the deleted history to the current history. If you could take a look I would appreciate it. CheersKylieTastic (talk)15:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I can't access the text of the deleted edits, only the metadata, but from checking the latter I'd say yes, these should be undeleted. The only logical place I can think of moving them to is toTalk:4 World Trade Center/Old history, just because of how much page history there is and the fact that there's no logical article target (andthis apparent text merge). I've done this sort of thing several times before; seeTalk:Air force/Old history for an example. The procedure is: move the article out to a /temp page with no redirect, undelete the deleted edits, move them to the /Old history talk subpage, move the article back (without a redirect), then add an explanation to the "/Old history" talk subpage and a link to it from the main talk page likethis. . My comments atWikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#History Viewer User group? are vaguely relevant to this thread, in case you haven't already seen that.Graham87 (talk)15:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the pre-cut-and-paste-move talk page fromTalk:150 Greenwich StreetTalk:150 Greenwich Street toTalk:4 World Trade Center/Archive 1. People reading this thread might be interested in a curio containing the very earliest history of the the article about the September 11 attacks,World Trade Center/Plane crashWorld Trade Center/Plane crash.Graham87 (talk)16:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opps sorry, I completely forgot you could not see the deleted edits. I was thinking of moving out the history to another page as you suggested so I'll do that, but probably tomorrow as clearly my brain is not 100% focused today. Thanks for your advice.KylieTastic (talk)16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Waaaaait ... would it make logical sense to attach those deleted edits to4 World Trade Center (1975-2001)4 World Trade Center (1975-2001) (i.e. are they about roughly the same topic, as it seems from the text merge I linked above)? (As distinct from4 World Trade Center (1975–2001), with the en dash rather than the hyphen, which has a newer history, and merging the deleted edits there wouldn't work as well). If so, that would be better than the talk page solution. There's also the small matter that the early history ofTalk:4 World Trade Center also refers to the deleted edits.Graham87 (talk)16:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so as it is definitely written about post 2001 - you can basically see the text inthis edit which was another cut-paste move.KylieTastic (talk)17:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the recovery and it is atTalk:4 World Trade Center/Old history now.KylieTastic (talk)10:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Thanks; works for me!Graham87 (talk)11:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Yeah,it's about the building that was destroyed in 2001 (see the hatnote, among other things). At least we have all the history though!Graham87 (talk)11:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the messiest I've seen and thankfully they are rare. As you say we have the history and no chance of them getting mixed together now. So just the other 12090 to do :)KylieTastic (talk)11:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, lol.Graham87 (talk)11:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I wonder if it might be worth undeleting the 2004 edits at3 World Trade Center? I probably would've, especially if it was an honest-to-goodness attempt at making an article. Also I think recording where the redirect went *before* the article was created would be interesting.Graham87 (talk)11:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have recovered those as they were the original good faith attempt.KylieTastic (talk)12:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if your last comment on ANI was a violation ofWP:TAIVDISCLOSE, but it looks to me like it's skirting the line.SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, I guess that could fall under the "reasonably believed to be necessary" clause. Sorry.SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Yeah I did review the guidelines before posting it. It's exquisitely difficult *not* to make the IP obvious in this case. And, as you may well have seen, they've been blocked here for at least eight years by now ...Graham87 (talk)16:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't see, as I decided not to request TAIV until I really needed it, so that I couldn't leak something I wasn't supposed to. :)SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: You didn't need TAIV to see that. You just needed to follow my link in the report to the earlier username,Hoggardhigh.Graham87 (talk)16:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there were slight(very slight) wording changes that would be better. For example, instead of saying /64, saying something like 'common range' would probably be better.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)22:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs: Yeah but in this case I needed to be specific about exactly what I wanted blocked. There's a reason thatUser:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 exists; I can't assume that evvry admin just knows how these IP's work. I just noticed your close there; thanks for that and thanks to the admin who performed the block.Graham87 (talk)06:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan @45dogs: For what it's worth, my reading of the WMF disclosure policy, gleaned in the course of writingWP:TAIVDISCLOSE and supplemented by some talks with WMF people, is that the strict-ish no-disclosure rule is really meant to applyspecifically to "<TA> is on <IP>" and things that state that by proxy like "<TA> is also the user who made <some edit by a legacy IP>". Saying that someone's bouncing around a /64 should definitely be fine; that'smetadata about an IP address, which Legalexplicitly said we can disclose under the same liberal disclosure rules as TA-to-TA connections. I do not think that saying there exist legacy IP edits with the same pattern would be an issue either; it would be a closer thing if Graham had said "on the same page" or "that admin so-and-so blocked on such-and-such date", but the TAIV disclosure policy is not like the CU policy where there's an expectation for CUs to go out of their way to not let their words be used to infer someone's IP. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)07:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks for the further info and context. Yeah, as you probably know, most (but not all) IPV6 addresses work that way, so I didn't think that was particularly personal info; it's sorta like saying "this person has two arms", which is true for most (but not all) people; I know not everyone has an IPV6 address, so the analogy doesn't quite hold, but it's the best I could come up with. But if they had an unusual IP configuration, I'd have to be a bit more careful. I'm sorry, but I justhad to makethis edit to your comment, given that I've had an occasional side project of focusing on interesting uses of {{CURRENTYEAR}} in the main namespace as of late. (I'm OK with how it's used on the Wikipedia namespace page, just not on the talk page). I also think it's worth noting that I contacted the blocking admin by email thanking them for the block and also querying about the block length; private contact seemed the best way to go under the circumstances.Graham87 (talk)07:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even an unusual IP configuration wouldusually be okay to disclose, unless it were incredibly distinctive. For instance, saying "the user is bouncing all over an IPv6 /32, but their address within each /64 subnet is consistent" would suggest the user is onJio, but that's fine given that you're also allowed to just say "the user is on Jio", a statement true of 1 in 16 people on Planet Earth. Something very unusual, like "the user's IPv6 address contains an approximation of their company's name, spelled using hexadecimal digits", would be more where it maybe crosses the line, since that's getting close to just saying "this user is a Facebook employee", which is probably too specific to share. (SeeSpecial:Search/~User talk: intitle:"FACE:B00C".) --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)07:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes; I've loved the Facebook one for years!Graham87 (talk)07:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]