User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 28

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 → Archive 35

Gauri Lankesh's biography

Hello, You gave me a warning when I removed sections from a journalist's page which stated (without any citations) that her husband found her fucking a pig. I have no found any articles referring to the same, and it seems like this was a character attack by people belonging to groups that oppose her (and probably later killed her) since he stood for minority rights. Can you give me a reason for your warning? Did you find credible sources to believe she was fucking pigs?

@PrachiJitVakh: Due apologies, I was reading through several pieces of the page history at once, and reverted on the wrong tab. Since the material in question was purely offensive, I have deleted the revisions in question, which I should have done in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@PrachiJitVakh:-- What he says; I too thought that it was you who inserted those violations and apologies, from my behalf, for suggesting over your IP address t/p that you ought to have been issued a final warning:-( Thanks for those reversions:-) ∯WBGconverse 14:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Query regarding citations for Financial Technologies Group

Hi,

I would like to thank you for your suggestions regarding the Financial Technologies Group page. However, I have a few queries and I hope you can help me out. The page contained information of all the subsidiary companies of the organization that were cited from the company's website '63 Moons'. These are crucial information and should be added to the page to increase its credibility. Since I cannot use the website as a source, how do I add the information? Also, the content that was added from the website was objective and factual. It did not promote the organization or its products in any manner, but simply described the nature of the product. It would be very appreciated if you could help me out regarding this. Titan356 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Titan356: The simple answer is that you shouldn't add that information. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion; company websites, on the other hand, are by their definition a means of promotion. Relying on them for most of the substance of an article therefore runs contrary to our core policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. Articles need to rely upon intellectually independent reliable sources for their substance; you can add whatever information you are able to find in such sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Shoddy standards, second opinion

How exactly is Parkala Massacre a Good Article? Has 4 paragraphs, one of which (though relevant) speaks about Jaliwanwalabagh massacre..... ∯WBGconverse 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed that article at DYK, as I recall. I am baffled as to how it qualifies as a GA. It's not a bad article, but it's 380 words long, and less than half of those are related to the events of the massacre. Personally, I'd try talking to the nominator and the reviewer, and, depending on their responses, perhaps opening a community reassessment. There's no minimum at GAN, but 380 is clearly far too short. Personally, I don't bother nominating something unless it's over 1000 words (of course, that's not a threshold that's codified anywhere). This is a perfect example of the problems with GAN; a nomination there gets less scrutiny than any of our other peer review processes, including DYK and ITN, which have to meet far lower standards. Some reviewers, including myself, are quite demanding; others just make sure that articles don't have clear flaws (copyvio, etc), and still others barely examine the criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's ask the nominator and the reviewer. The nominator claims to have reviewed more than 26 GANs:-( ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN RDs

Thanks for posting Wu Yili. I've moved it to her actual death date, because the ITN consensus, as I understand it, is to post items on the announcement date only when it was at least in the region of 3–5 days later. eg Stephen recently posted Jess Roskelley on the date of the announcement of his body being found, ie 16th vs 21st. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: That's fine with me; it would only have worked if I were switching it for Lyra McKee, though, because the oldest other was still more recent than Wu Yili. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I had suggested that the next RD to post was switched with McKee, which I also implemented. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: Yes, good call. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at Talk:Parkala Massacre.
Message added 05:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sigh. ∯WBGconverse 05:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Where is the proper place to ask for clarification by what is meant by "glyphosate, broadly construed" that you proposed here and here and was agreed to by other admins here? Should I ask at WP:ARCA for clarification or just ask you? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: ARCA is the formal venue, yes. Informally, you should ask TonyBallioni, who actually logged the sanction. In practice, asking any of us who supported it is fine, so long as your question is strictly limited to asking about the scope of the topic ban, and not relitigating it. I'm a little confused about what you wish to clarify, though, because it's fairly clear. If you have questions about a specific page, go ahead and ask them. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure what’s confusing here. Stay away from glyphosate. Don’t talk about it. If you think an edit may be related to it, don’t make it. Pretty simple. Put another way: if a reasonable informed third-party thinks that an edit is related to glyphosate, you shouldn’t be making it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Mario Testa

I didn't notice it was up for deletion. I would have voted keep as this person is probably among the most influential in Connecticut. However, I won't contest this decision for various reasons. I just want to inform you that I have noticed an uptick in IP-edits related to Connecticut politics.
Markvs88, have you noticed anything like that?
Yeah, Vanamode, you might want to keep that article in your watchlist until at least past November. Just my hunch. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Well, if it's recreated, I'm sure there's enough people keeping an eye on it to take appropriate action. Depending on what it looks like at that point, it may need to be tagged for speedy deletion, sent to AfD again, or just left alone. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
  • Wales Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
  • Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
  • Kingdom of Prussia Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Chicago Barkeep49 with six GAs, United States Ceranthor, England Lee Vilenski, and Saskatchewan Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and Denmark MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Refund

Not sure why no admin is touching this can you take a look at the deleted version if there is anything worth salvaging in the deleted version. I suspect there may be.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not undelete it myself; an argument could be made that I'm involved, and it's not urgent enough to be an IAR situation. I have left a comment, though. There's some sources that are worth salvaging, and some details of her personal life (I have not checked whether that material is supported by the sources). Vanamonde (Talk) 11:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I just wanted to make sure that this was worth following up. I will start a thread at ANI as you suggested. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demolition of the Babri Masjid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Demolition of the Babri Masjid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Kiryathil Nair‎

Hi, any chance of you keeping an eye on Talk:Kiryathil Nair‎ and the associated article? I'm not planning on responding any further to the anon who has been doing stuff there recently because it doesn't seem to be sinking in. I suspect they will try to restore their bloated crap. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've left a note on that talk page, and I've watchlisted it; but my time for Wikipedia is severely limited at the moment, so I can't get too much into the weeds. If they continue to use the same sort of language, though, I'm quite happy to block them; they've now had multiple warnings. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I can live with the language - it is the apparent unwillingness to listen that makes the discussion pointless in my eyes. We'll see what happens next but, so far, it looks like my career as a fortune-teller is stalling. - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demolition of the Babri Masjid

The article Demolition of the Babri Masjid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Demolition of the Babri Masjid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That is excellent. Why not pick a contentious topic next time?! - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! How about Narendra Modi? Oh, wait. Joking aside; I've intended to rewrite our page about the RSS for a while, but simply haven't found the time to begin a project that large. Some day, perhaps. The page is in such terrible shape, but I've come to terms with most contentious topics being in terrible shape. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The Macon/Fæ ANI close

I saw your comment at the review request. You don't appear to have absorbed a single point I was making in the request or anything posted after it. "[W]arning them when they are fully aware and choose not to use [specific preferred pronouns not just a compatible approach to gender neutrality] anyway is very much within the spirit of our policies about harassment". It absolutely is not, and I proved it right in front of you, and announced that I was doing so: In writing about Fæ, every single reference I made to that editor specifically avoided Fæ's singular they and instead used the username or some other circumlocution ("the editor", "this user", etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I'm not feeling argumentative at the moment, so I'm not going to bother asking you why you are willing to go to such lengths to avoid the singular they. Even setting that aside, what you did is not why Guy Macon did. He used language that called attention to his refusal to use the singular they despite being asked to do so, and that very much merited the warning he was given. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Still not getting it. I regularly use singular they. I did not in that case to disprove that premise that Macon (or anyone else) is being offensive when they choose some other GN writing option. And I very clearly did disprove it, as have thousands of prior editors, unconnected to anything related to Fæ, going about their business since WP's beginning without using singular they. Whether or not I prefer singular they is immaterial. At both the ANI and the AN followup, Macon made it very clear why he doesn't use it, and he is hardly alone on- or off-WP. It's offensive to keep mis-gendering someone with she or he if they're nonbinary; it is not offensive to choose one of the available GN paths and use it (whether that be well-attested neo-pronouns, singular they, or writing around pronouns entirely). We all know this, yet you and others are piling on to deny it, apparently (but who knows, since I can't read minds) out of fear of being in the crosshairs of a TG/NB person who is a well-proven slinger of nasty "transphobic" and "disrespectful of minorities" false accusations (including doing so off-site in a harassment pattern) and who has a growing, canvassed-up entourage. If you aren't going to have the administrative spine to deal with the real problem user here, at least don't make the situation worse, please. Defending someone who should have been re-topicbanned months ago, just to stick it to someone else with less patience than either of us who objects to that editor's disruptive antics, isn't useful. And trying to hand-wave away the points I raised at AN with the idea that because I supported your RfA I should just accept your view makes me now doubt that my support was well placed. I'll give benefit of the doubt and just chalk this up to some kind of "blinded by politicking" temporary lack of clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You've disproved nothing; indeed you're just demonstrating that you've got too deep into this mess. There is a fundamental difference between what Guy Macon wrote, and your statement at ANI. I pointed it out once; if you still cannot see it, I cannot be bothered to point it out again. Also, "it is not offensive to choose one of the available GN paths and use it" is quite incorrect. Using a different gender-neutral pronoun isn't misgendering, but it still can be offensive. That opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with Fae, who I already asked to stop poking Guy, and who Floquenbeam also asked to stop poking Guy. I brought up my RFA only to remind you that you once trusted my judgement, and so might be willing to genuinely consider what I had to say. If you are instead doing what far too many experienced Wikipedians do, which is to decide that everyone who has disagreed with you is deficient in judgement, so be it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: "Using a different gender-neutral pronoun isn't misgendering, but it still can be offensive." Bollocks. Any experience at all with TG/NB people and their forums disproves that. People who prefer to use a set of neo-pronouns use them; those who prefer singular they use that; and some subset try to figure out what the subject prefers (e.g. one specific neo-pronoun set) and use that on a case-by-case basis; meanwhile, many of us just avoid pronouns if we like neither singular they nor neo-pronouns. No where in the world is this an issue except in the imagination of Fæ and apparently you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"Fæ and apparently you" and the several other users, admins included, who made the same damn point. I was hardly alone in backing Floquenbeam's closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Financial Technologies Group

(Redacted)

I have revised the content for the product section. It states facts and does not promote any product. Is it okay if I add it now? Titan356 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Titan356: There are two problems here. First, many of these sources are not reliable in this context, because they are based on press releases or are otherwise not intellectually independent of their subject. Second, the language you are using is still of the sort that would belong in a press release, not on an encyclopedia. Indeed most of the details you are looking to add are industry jargon that are not of interest to a general reader. Please go read WP:NOT carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the above content, because it was copied from the corporate website, and that's a violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thanks: I had meant to perform a copyvio check, but hadn't gotten around to it. Titan356, if you are trying to pass off content copied from the website as "revised" and "not promotional", you shouldn't be editing this article, and I'm beginning to seriously doubt your claim that you have no connection to the topic of the article. Please find a different article to edit, or risk being blocked for promotional editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frankfurt School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Honoring the WP:RSN

Am I right thinking that one should not get away from reverting an edit approved by WP:RSN?--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RSN is not for "approving edits"; it's for establishing consensus about the use of sources that have been challenged elsewhere. Consensus formed at RSN should not generally be ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of libel?

Hi Vanamonde, user:Mhhossein accused me of inserting "defamatory material" to an article, but all I did was add information backed by a source approved at RSN. Is this not "tossing around accusations of libel" as you said in your last warning? Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're seeking for by such sort of reports and comments. last warning included portions such as " WP:BLP is not to be treated lightly; coverage of living people not only needs to be sourced to reliable sources, it needs to reflect all major viewpoints among reliable sources." By the way, just like the other editor said, I suggest you to avoid labeling edits of a newbie as slanderous. --Mhhossein talk 13:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Mhhossein, you cannot repeatedly make false accusations against other editors. This makes the process of working towards consensus disruptive and very negative. Vanamonde was the last admin to warn you, saying "tossing around accusations of libel isn't acceptable". Even here you are not addressing or taking back what you said. This is a legitimate concern for me, this is why I'm brining this here. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a somewhat subtle distinction here; all libelous material violates BLP, but not all BLP-violating material is libelous. Mhhossein should not be making accusations of libel, but Alex, if there's concerns over the source quality, you do need to take them seriously. I would strongly suggest you both try to reach a consensus on what reliable sources say about this individual; genuinely libelous material should be reported to the oversight team. More broadly, though, there's far too much antagonism and too little effort to build consensus on the talk page. You both obviously have different strong opinions about the topic in question. The way to get around that is to constrain the talk page discussion strictly to specific content issues, and take any allegations of misbehavior to a different forum. Please keep in mind that the longer these disputes drag on, and the more personal they become, the more likely it is that everyone on that page will face a draconian sanction, either from the community or from ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: When you say "Mhhossein should not be making accusations of libel", it means that Mhhossein have made "accusations of libel" and he should stop it. This is while I was making it clear for the other party that the content was defamatory and that the BLP issue was serious. You can count the number of RFCs and subsections I have opened on the talk page. Please notice that my last edit to the page dates back to 2 days ago, while others are making reverts on a daily basis. --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Mhossein, as I've said before, I am not going to get into a comparative analysis of each editor's behavior, because nobody's hands are clean. If there are problems with an editors behavior that are serious enough to sanction (adding libelous content is definitely one of those), you need to first warn them, and then report it. If it's not that serious, you need to maybe leave them a friendly note, and then ignore it. What you (and several others) have done on that page is to continually criticize behavior; whereas the only real way to sort out such a contentious mess is to focus on content, not behavior. Let the admins deal with the behavioral issues; and make that easier for them by making sure your own conduct is absolutely above board. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, a source is approved at RSN, and so I include it in the article, and Mhhossein then accuses me of "restoring defamatory material" (but does not support this accusation, there or here, with any evidence), is this a behavior issue? or is this behavior ok? Alex-h (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sake. No, that behavior is not okay. That's why I told Mhhossein it wasn't okay. It also isn't bad enough for me to block him unilaterally, so I didn't do that. Why are you belaboring the point? The thing you should do is ask Mhhossein what issue he has with the source. What you do next depends on his response. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde, you said that if there's concerns over the source quality that I should take them seriously, and I just wanted to show you that I had. Also I did ask Mhhossein, but he wont respond. There is no evidence for his accusation, so it is unlikely that he will respond. Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Please go sort this out on the talk page; I've said what I have to say about this particular incident. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Christophe Jaffrelot

... is apparently the new target [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've had that on my watchlist for a while, but wasn't online when this edit was made. I hope it's a one-off. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration Case

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Central Park jogger case

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Park jogger case. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bitcoin SV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitcoin SV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. torusJKL (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian Assange

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35

Would appreciate your input on my talkpage on what can be done. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Demolition of the Babri Masjid

On 8 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Demolition of the Babri Masjid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Babri Masjid, a mosque built in 1528, was demolished in 1992 after a political rally turned violent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Demolition of the Babri Masjid. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Demolition of the Babri Masjid), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

request

Would you be so kind to close this AN3 report?--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that it has already been closed, and you are quite lucky that only page protection, rather than some symmetric blocks, was applied. As I've said before, the bunch of you need to focus on reaching consensus, rather than preventing consensus from being reached; if things continue as they are, draconian sanctions are likely to be authorized at one forum or another. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts

Hello. Over at the Teahouse we're having a bit of a 'spring clean' by removing inactive entries from the list of Hosts. As you don't appear to have been very active recently, I have taken your host profile off the list. But please don't let that put you off contributing again in the future - either by signing back up as a Host on a regular basis, or just dropping in whenever you fancy helping out. Thank you for all your past help and support for new users at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

PS - I couldn't help noticing that you've got the caption slightly wrong on your userpage. The photo shows the Matterhorn's east face, with the Hornli ridge on the right, and then the N face even further right. That must be a sunset in the west, not a sunrise in the east. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Fair enough; after becoming an administrator I found enough of my time occupied by requests for assistance elsewhere that I rarely had the time or motivation to return to the Teahouse. Thanks for the tip about the picture. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I remember being half way up the mountain when the sun came up at 6am, so I can speak from personal experience. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Gutstein

In opera, you don't say "the part" but "the role", - I thoroughly dislike the hook as something catering to people interested in castrato instead of something substantial about his great roles, but we could at least get this bit right ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

ps: I see it is explained later that it's a role, - how about "appeared as Ernesto ..."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Is "sand the part of" actually wrong? It reads a little bit more naturally to me than "appeared as", although the latter is not wrong, and if there's a technical reason or a strong preference on your part, I can change it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is natural in opera ;) - saying "appeared as" includes that it's not only singing, but acting also. "performed the role" would also work, while "part" doesn't, - in opera speek, that's reserved to instrumental or choral parts. To have "part" and "role" in one hook is double misleading, imho. "portrayed" has been used, but not in the article, - compare the Jennifer Holloway hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've gone with "appeared as" (note that the original did only say "sang", though...) Vanamonde (Talk) 23:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that's more opera speek. Among people who talk opera, "sings" is enough (even in German, same), but if we want to include others, "appeared" (in German "trat auf", - literally "stepped on [the stage]") seems less unclear ;) - By "original" you can't mean the original hook in the nom. - Some days I wish we could run two hooks on the same subject and compare results. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I meant the hook promoted to the queue, which I checked today because I (unusually) had the time. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests.

March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.

May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rojava

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello my friend !

Good morning.

I contact you because I was banned from modifications on the French Wikipedia ! You'd like to know why ? Because I deleted the discussions on my own page and I put in the Infobox the flags of countries and cities, states, counties ... Some French administrators decided that it was forbidden or not recommended... Then Gemini1980 banned me... I find it unacceptable, this person uses his "power" and his fellow administrators too. I can not do anything against this. What should I do ? What can you do ?

Sincerely TH2M8S aka THOMAS TH2M8S (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@TH2M8S: If you have been blocked on the French wikipedia, you need to go there, figure out what you did wrong, and file an unblock request explaining why the block is no longer necessary. Admins on one Wikimedia project have no jurisdiction on another; nobody outside the French Wikipedia can help you with such a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I can not find a place where I can apply. User:Vanamonde93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH2M8S (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello TH2M8S. I checked a bit on the French Wikipedia and I also can't see where you can appeal your block. Here, you normally still have access to your talk page and can try to contact the blocking administrator that way (on your French talk page, not here). You should try that first.
But it looks like you were blocked for a good reason. Some users asked you not to add the flags to the infoboxes, and gave you good reasons why adding them makes Wikipedia harder to use for readers with disabilities, and you answered that you were going to do it anyway. If you did that here you would be blocked too. So if you are going to try talking to the administrators on French Wikipedia, start by explaining that you know that what you did was wrong and that you will not do it again.
Best wishes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@TH2M8S, Vanamonde93, and Ivanvector: Very difficult to find, but it's at fr:Modèle:Déblocage:

Pour demander un déblocage, ajoutez {{déblocage}} à votre page de discussion.

I did not see this mentioned in any article about blocking policy on fr-wiki. Poorly done doc pages. I've requested an update to their Block page to include it. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_28"