User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 29

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy

Hi Vanamonde93. Would you unsalt Unbox Therapy? You were the closer of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy and wrote, "I am personally willing to grant this, but please ask BethNaught, who protected this, first." My request nine months ago at User talk:BethNaught/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy has not been answered. Would you also undelete Draft:Unbox Therapy which was deleted in April 2019 as an abandoned draft? Pinging DRV nominator Thivierr (talk · contribs) so that Thivierr is aware of this request. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, BethNaught is still active, but this isn't worth the bureaucracy, so done. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on promoting Ursula K. Le Guin! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you! Much appreciated. It was quite a bit of work. It's good to see you more active, by the way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Frank LaMere

On 22 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank LaMere, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 23:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Bramble Cay Melomys.
Message added 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Eyes

on this user might be merited. Also, is it just me who feels that the number of incompetent/disruptive users across Indian spheres has suddenly spiked? ∯WBGconverse 18:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Worrying, to be certain. I'll keep an eye on the edits; at the moment, they are not prolific enough to be very concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Review!

Please review Baavle Utaavle and give your feedback.Edit2Text (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Edit2Text: I do not usually write about film and television, and so I'm not a very good person to give you any feedback. At a first glance, though, you seem to need some higher-profile independent sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! When you get a chance, could you take a look at a statement I have made on the WikiCup talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Gerda! Cwm, will read through ASAP. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Populism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Norfolk Island Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
  • South Carolina Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
  • United States Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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) 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo Armas

G'day Van, I was just going through the Milhist A-Class reviews I've done in the first half of this year, and wanted to tell you that Carlos Castillo Armas definitely has the legs for FAC, if you want to take it there. I know you are busy with WikiCup, but I'd definitely take another look if it was at FAC. It covers a poorly-known time and place on en WP, and would be a great TFA on July 7 next year. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the note; much appreciated! I do indeed intend to take it to FAC. I may decide to try Operation PBFortune first; we'll see about that. The chief reason I'm holding off is RL commitments that are keeping me offline for most of the week. When I return to full-time activity (soon), I will certainly be sending something to FAC, and I would be happy to take you up on your offer of a review. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm baaaack!!

Van, you've always given me good advice so I'm hoping you will share your thoughts again. There is somewhat of an analogy between my mental processes when I first arrive at a casino and put the first $50 in a slot machine and when I first present an argument at a WP noticeboard or on an article talk page. If I'm going to win anything at all, it will be within the first hour of arrival. If I stay longer, my chances of winning are substantially reduced. Of course, the time frame on WP is much different but it can be estimated to somewhat coincide. So...let's say I present an argument about an issue in the lead that is noncompliant with policy in hopes of obtaining an agreeable compromise to correct the problem (as a member of the LIA, I tend to focus primarily on leads). I present my argument, and based on the repsonse, it becomes obvious the issue is motivated either by politics or an agenda driven POV (which is typically determined using common sense and a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, but deny it they will). Of course, we are expected to AGF, which I customarily do based on my own naïveté.

In some situations where a highly controversial topic is at issue and the discussion is local, arguments that support strict adherence to NPOV or BLP policies may not prevail based on the numbers in the opposing camp. What I find most confusing is why the policy-based argument doesn't prevail despite the numbers...even if a single editor has challenged it? NPOV states clearly, This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. I have yet to see nor by editor consensus prevail when there is a political divide, despite the obvious noncompliance. The same applies to skeptism, depending on what side of the topic is being presented. In that situation, we have WP:FRINGE which encourages us to include all prominent views but to exercise caution per DUE & WEIGHT. WP:BLPFRINGE states: Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. That isn't happening. What's a gal supposed to do?

It just doesn't seem appropriate that my former t-ban should be held over my head for simply presenting a valid argument. From my perspective, I'm being threatened into silence for fear of being "punished". Some will suggest that I work on other topics but that neither helps me or the project when there is strong evidence of noncompliance and/or that a single POV consistently prevails. It goes against everything WP was built on. I was outed in 2015; therefore, I don't have the protection of anonymity so it probably matters more in situations where I'm involved. Criticism of WP in the RW regarding AP2, BLP, etc. reflects on me in similar ways as it would reflect on Doc James as a member of Project Med. That's why I try to do my best and work at getting articles promoted to GA/FA status...and the same with my photography on Commons. Does that make sense? Atsme Talk 📧 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've seen this. I will read through and write a detailed reply, but it may take me some time; I need to work through my watchlist first. Just so you know I'm not ignoring you. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: Apologies for taking this long to respond. The crux of the matter is WP:DUE. That policy requires us to present "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (I know you know the policy: I'm quoting it to clarify something). When dealing with your average encyclopedia subject, determining proportional weight isn't difficult. For instance, some time ago, I rewrote Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre; and despite it being a tricky subject, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I have complied with WP:DUE; because the quantity of high-quality source material is such that I have read and accounted for most of it.
With our high-profile subjects from the present day, we have a problem. The quantity of source material is simply absurd, and it's inflated by WP:RECENTISM, too. Nobody can claim to have read even a substantial fraction of it. When discussing Western politics, we have a further problem; because of persistent orientalism within the academy, there are fewer broad, dispassionate, scholarly accounts of contemporary US politics than (in my experience, at least) Indian or Pakistani politics.
This leaves us with the difficult task of determining what constitutes due weight without actually reading all of the material. And in this sort of situation, consensus is inevitably going to be swayed by numbers, when most editors have some basis in policy for their arguments (you can have a policy-based argument that's still wrong; I think you can see how). Thus we end up with situations where we have text that gains consensus, despite "obviously" violating policy. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I avoid writing about American politics, despite being interested in it. It's quite possible that this answer will leave you dissatisfied; I know I am dissatisfied with the manner in which we treat the biographies of many contemporary politicians; but within our current framework, it's what we have to work with. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, V - if you'll let this sit here for a few more days, I'd like to come back and read it again with fresh eyes. I have a fairly decent memory, but it's more like taking a picture with a 35mm film camera (film has to be developed, etc.) vs a 30MP full frame DSLR. ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 04:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem. I leave the archiving to the bot, and even if it does archive this thread you should feel free to resurrect it if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy Ngo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your enormous contributions to science fiction fantasy authors and novels. Politics-related articles make a close second. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Better here. Finer policy-attuned minds than I are more focused than I manage to be. TLDR, so no need to reply

In reply to your request for clarification.

Sorry about that opacity. I meant that in drafting measures to deal with the class of behaviours in (b), we should be careful not to frame it so broadly that the definitions spill over to affect the class of behavior in (a). I can wear being called a 'poseur', 'arsehole', 'fraudulent', 'reactionary' and so on, as recently. It has no effect on my humour. This is not a good argument, admittedly, because in our community, there are lot of people who've never grown up in an ambiance where real aggressiveness, verbal or otherwise, was fairly common, and one learnt to read it, and cope with it.In virtual-cyber terms, there seems to be a cultural shift underway, where young people invest a huge amount of their energy in seeking endorsements of their ionsecure self-esteem, by trying to get the best out of sparring on social media with unknown voices from beyond. I would hope Wikipedia, whatever culture it develops, persists in drawing a sharp line between its practices, and those regulatory practices on social media which have no other purpose than to connect people, and provide them with an identity and pastime. Here, we work, for a common good -precise, informed, global knowledge, nothing else.

So for me, to cop snarky language just tells me someone out there is getting angry to no end, and, anyway, it's merely a comment on a talk page. Real life's full of that. I find reading even mainstream newspaper reports on the world more unnerving (for what they report, or fail to report in their coverage) than perusing animated and somewhat aggressive talk page comments on wiki. If the editor who keeps that up were to begin to trsnsfer what, to me, is innocuousfatuous and rather pathetic hostility into actually reverting article contributions with inadequate, non-policy based edit summaries, well that, in the long term, would wear one out. So, in sum, I have a fair tolerance of people who are upset at people like myself, and work off steam on a talk page. If they transfer that animosity to articles, damaging their construction, then 'that' is wearying. Because it would mean, to cite one case, that several hours reading and synthesizing abstruse articles on the chert-quartz transition in paleolithic flints, Mineng dialect terminology for the seasons in an 1831 source, and an Heideggerian reading of the 'phenomenology' of time to cast light on an ethnographic issue, would be squashed out like bug from the said article simply out of antipathy, by an editor who probably knows nothing of the topic. That is the kind of behavior that has nagged me for 13 years. (b) refers to acts by editors that damage the construction of articles according to RS and NPOV, not to acts of hostility that never translate into harm to articles.

If I made a list of (b) it would be something like this:-

The problems that wear me one out are (i) reverting with false edit summaries (ii) reverting sequentially at sight, by editors with no talk page justification (iii)WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT attitudes by those who engage on the talk page, but refuse to focus closely on the on the issues under contention; (iv) falsifying sources (v) reverting while not even glancing at the sources; (vi) taking out a source, against the RSN board evidence, which contains facts/material one dislikes, justifying the removal as 'not RS', while on the same page, leaving in sources favourable to your POV whose status as RS is equally questionable; (vii) continual recourse to the drama boards even when on several occasions, the plaintiff's evidence has been dismissed as inadequate; (viii) preemptively excising any academic book by a qualified specialist on the topic an article deals with without prior talk page discussion (ix) removing 149,000 bytes of text citing Wikipedia:Article size, thus 'disappearing' 150 footnotes and a 100 odd academic sources out of sheer civil POV pushing distaste. (rather than considering that, when you see a deep mass of carefully constructed, optimally sourced material, with encyclopedic value, you should realize that erasing it erases someone's several days of hard work, and simply roll up your sleeves and resolve the perceived length problem by transferring the contested material into sister articles).I could think of a score of others were it not for a certain fatigue at an off-wiki strenuous day. As long as whatever policy we have is drawn up by our representatives here, and reflects the complexities of various inputs, I don't think I would worry about whatever result is forthcoming.Keep up the good work

Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I should add, on reading your remark about how frequently at the drama boards, cases of abuse have been passed over because the editor in question is considered too valuable, I realize that I simply don't know this area. I almost never read those pages except when compelled to in personal defense. So my input is pointless. My impression was that arbcom generally gets things right, that peons like myself are let off, or sanctioned, without visible favour or prejudice. Errors are made, but a good wikipedian should accept sanctions as part of the cost of working here, and not appeal them if 'convicted', but just sit them out. Arbitration is the most onerous, unremittingly hard task of all in this weird area and whatever the failings, nowhere else in the world will one get people volunteering long hours to work through endless partisan screeds and diffs in order to ensure that the project stays afloat.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Some replies, since it seems we're not disagreeing much. The problems you outline in category (b) are those that bother me too, both as an editor and as an admin trying to resolve conflict in topics I don't write about. What is especially bothersome is when bad language on the part of editor X allows editor Y to get away with the problems in category (b); this is really quite common, and is probably something you're familiar with. A related phenomenon is that of editors with an axe to grind being rude with the obvious intent of provoking a good and neutral content writer into saying something sanctionable, or at the very least tarnishing their reputation. While I have lots of respect for people who continue to be civil in the face of unremitting hostility, I think it's not always a reasonable expectation; and if we are concerned with the civility of content writers in difficult topics, we need to be equally concerned with the hostility they face.
Finally, since you mention that you are unfamiliar with it; discussions about civility typically founder on the question of what to do with a handful of editors who are a) good content writers and b) notoriously hostile and contemptuous in their attitudes to most people most of the time. These are the difficult cases I refer to (Eric Corbett is the best example, but there are others) wherein ARBCOM usually does the right thing, but at enormous cost in terms of editor time and effort, and for a problem that is patently obvious to many people concerned. Even after ARBCOM steps in, we often have reams of discussion that follow when admins attempt to enforce ARBCOM remedies. Although these cases represent a handful of editors (with substantial differences between them, too) they represent a wildly disproportionate level of community involved, and are in my opinion the cases on which the WMF is most likely to intervene; which is why we need to discuss them, too. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I should have been briefer. In summary style my concern is simply that, in drawing up better policy instruments to regulate the incivility in (b) situations, things are not so worded that we end up inadvertently straightjacketing the kind of fresh vernacular exchanges most of us use, moodily but not aggresively (a). Most cases I remember involve diffs that contain an unkind or questionable word in an otherwise straightforward attempt to argue a position. Look at several diffs and an admin might be tempted to say, 'ha. He used, an exasperated, 'for fuck's sake' one week; asked an editor to look up what 'prevarication' means; implied an interlocutor should 'focus' a day later, implying he's distracted (something he denies); said, some weeks later, 'this is silly', implying some other editor is stupid; used 'rubbish' dismissively a few days later. Ergo, he hasn't mastered wiki civility. Sanction. But, if instead of running through the diffs, one opens the section in which each diff is embedded, and sees the context, and the way both parties are arguing, much of that evidence will, as often as not, seem, if not justified, then perhaps no worse by any means than the obstructive attitude of the people whose edits those phrases refer to, people engaged in civil POV pushing. I know admins who only read the given diff. I know of admins who, for each diff, read back, and then forward, to capture the context. The results of the final call often differ. I don't blame the former, and I don't think the latter should be obliged to work that extra unasked for mile. Sorry, it's late. I've overstayed my welcome. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration and Enforcement

What specifically got me banned from editing all US politics after 1932? My recent edits on the AOC article were true and reliably sourced. I did not violate 1RR as far as I know. Please let me know. Thanks. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Also - how do I initiate an arbitration and enforcement against Snooganssnoogans? -JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The edits that got you banned are all listed at the discussion at AE. I will not list them again; but fundamentally, this was about a battleground attitude and a failure to comply with WP:NPOV, not a 1RR violation as such. Please note that per WP:BANEX, the only real exceptions to your topic ban are for clarifying the scope of the ban, appealing the ban, or reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations. Defending your previous edits isn't permitted; nor is requesting arbitration enforcement under the same set of discretionary sanctions. So, requesting enforcement against Snooganssnoogans under American Politics discretionary sanctions is not something you can do while your ban is in place. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate the explanation.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way - I think I requested that AE be initiated against Snooganssnoogans in my explanation on the AE case prior to my ban being in place.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Bramble Cay melomys

On 20 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bramble Cay melomys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the extinction of the Bramble Cay melomys was described as the first for a mammal species due to anthropogenic climate change? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bramble Cay melomys), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

New WikiProject Socialism membership system

Hello! I'm in the process of introducing a new membership system to WikiProject Socialism (designed as part of WikiProject X and adopted by a few other projects). The new system works by filling a form which creates a WikiProject Card. I'm manually creating WikiProject cards for current members. You can find and edit yours here. Any change to your WikiProject card will be automaticalle updated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Members. If you have any doubt, please, feel free to contact me by replying here using the {{re}} template. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

TBAN location

Thanks for the reminder. In all the Framgate bollocks, I forgot. Hopefully remedied now. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: No problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antifa (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antifa (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass MOS:IS violations

Hi Vanamonde93, I'm writing to you as an admin with an interest in India-related articles. this IP has been systematically adding native names in an Indic script (Tamil?) to Indian locality articles. I've left a message on their talk page which they don't appear to have taken note of. Could you – or a helpful talk-page watcher – take appropriate action? The thought of going through and reverting all their edits with Twinkle does not fill me with joy, and I'm unsure that it would be the most productive action in any case. Thank-you in advance :) Wham2001 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that Serols and Fylindfotberserk have rolled the offending edits back, and Ad Orientem has blocked. Thank-you all. Wham2001 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Wham2001, Thank you and welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding sooner; I have been inactive for close to a week. Thanks to those who took care of this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Akhil Bharatiya Ram Ram Rajya Parishad.

This has reference to the removal of my edit.

1. Please note that ' The party eventually merged with Jan Sangh........' is without any proper reference this must be removed.

2. I quoted the reference for the edit I made. It is only an extract from the book I cited, which speaks that the founder's values are different from the values of Jan Sangh.

3. Hence please remove that edit which I have pointed out at point 1 above. Then there is no need to reactivate the edit I made.

--Ramesam54 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ramesam54: Please read a little more carefully. The statement in the article is sourced to the Bell article, which explicitly supports the information in question. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Article 35A

Oh hello, did you even bother to read the article of rising kashmir. The article itself has given all references regarding the arguments. Don't remove now my changes now.

I have read that source several times. It does not comply with our guideline on reliable sources, and needs to be removed. If the website provides good sources for that content, then use those sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen you Indian, are you going to teach the developer of the product guidelines now? What you know about Kashmir and autonomy? who are you to remove my edits? DONT REMOVE MY CHANGES. OK

I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia; explaining our guidelines to new users is one of the things administrators are meant to do. Also, you have no basis on which to determine my nationality, my nationality is irrelevant here anyway, and my knowledge of recent Kashmiri history is probably superior to that of most editors of that page; so for the last time, please read the links I posted to your talk page, and make edits of a sort that won't have to be removed by someone else. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Article 35A

I responded to your note on my talk page. I thought I would add that I wrote a paper about Kashmir when I was in college, in the 1960s. I have added that here because I try not to disclose anything about myself even though this bit of information is probably not very informative. In any event, I thought information about me would be less likely noticed here and that you might find it of some interest. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Donner60: Many thanks. I do indeed find it of interest; the Kashmir conflict is a long and sad story, but also one that is very instructive; or I find it to be, anyhow. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I was offline for a few days. The Kashmir story was already a long, sad story more than 50 years ago. I wish I still had the paper. It was supposed to be a neutral history paper but I can't remember the details from so long ago. At that time, of course, if one did not make a carbon paper copy of a typewritten paper, or have the paper returned after grading, one did not have a copy. Copy machines were still rather new and there was no such thing as a home copier. Donner60 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If it were up to me...

I would make it so the community elected new admins once every 6 months, and then I'd pay you and 2 other highly qualified admins to be Admin trainers. The position would entail teaching the new plebes (1) what they need to know about admin etiquette (which you have exhibited so eloquently), (2) what is expected of them as admins, (3) how to use the tools, and (4) ?? etc. At the end of each 6 mos training interval, the plebes will be evaluated by all 3 admin trainers, and will either pass or fail. And then it starts all over again with the next batch of newly elected plebes. \S/ Atsme Talk 📧 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Well that's very kind of you. Indeed the idea of admin mentors in general is a good one, because otherwise there's a bit of a catch-22; you can't be good at many of the things admins need to do without doing them, and to do them you need the tools, so you'll never be good at them as long as you're not an admin. But it's a struggle even to make minor tweaks at the moment, so...Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Marriage certificate of Jinnah

Greetings,
I feel this photo might be a copyright violation File:Nikahnama-jinah.png. I do not understand how a marriage certificate becomes "own work". Opinion? Should we nominate the photo for deletion? Or it comes under some PD act, such as PD-text? Thanks and regards in advance. --Titodutta (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Titodutta: What the author probably means is that they took a photograph of the certificate, but you're right of course, it's the copyright status of the certificate itself that matters. Which would require knowledge of the applicable Pakistani and US laws; that knowledge I don't have. I wonder if our resident expert would be willing to help. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Assuming this is the original certificate from the 1918 wedding, it would almost certainly be out of copyright in both Pakistan and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Titodutta: Nikkimaria makes a good point; pd-1923 should apply, and given that it's highly unlikely for there to be a public display of a copyrighted more recent reproduction, I suppose there's no harm in placing that tag. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks. Glad to know possibly we can save this photo. Once we get to know the "Source" (if not "own work", we need to mention the source), we can fix it. If it is ok for you, we can ask a Commons admin such as Yann (not linking right now) to check and fix it. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but since it's not getting deleted, anyone should be able to fix it - it doesn't require admin rights. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:David Spanbauer

I'm surprised you characterized this as an attack page when it's an referenced article about a serial killer. It's hard to see any factual article about a murderer and rapist as being anything but a negative article. I think the draft needs work and I think it should be deleted as a copyright violation but it will never be a positive article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't expect or want a positive page; but I would characterize any page using sentences like "His mental issue drove him to carry out his first wrongdoing" and "The judge named him a"sexual go astray" and condemned him to seventy years in jail", sourced to blogs and/or unreliable sources, an attack page. Even if he is a notable serial killer, we're doing a disservice to our readers with a page like that. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I suppose. I appreciate you explaining your reasons. Some of the writing was pretty glib but I was surprised to read the sources which supported the basics facts of his life story. But some of the copy was directly lifted from them so I will delete for both reasons. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: Much appreciated. Perhaps you noticed already, but it was tagged as a G11(!) before I got there, which is how I came across it in the first place...Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!

Just to be sure you don't miss this [1]. EEng 07:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I did see that comment, and I see that you've placed some tags in the article. I'm watching the discussion with interest. I don't know if you're interested in more advice at this point, but I think it's worth remembering that whether or not criticism is taken well often has more to do with how it's presented than with whether it's justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You mean our fellow editors aren't cold emotional robots? You amaze me! Of course you're right in general, but quite frankly I gave up weeks ago trying to get this gang to give serious consideration – or any consideration at all – to criticism of what they do; the job now is to get the community to see at last that this emperor has been naked all these years, and its only the ecstatic, hypnotic dancing of the whirling dervishes all around him that has kept the community from saying with one voice what everyone individually knows. This isn't a content dispute, it's a very serious ownership-bullying behavioral matter.
I appreciate your taking the time at AE to do what only a few others did, which was to actually read the article talk-page discussion and summarize it for others in a way that allows them (those not willfully blind, that is) to see what's really going on there; though I must say Swarm takes the prize for really ramming the truth home. Perhaps in your abundant spare you can take the extra step of commenting at the RfC. To support the version I and 10 other editors worked on for six weeks before it was arbitrarily reverted because this superb (cough) FA with it's unimpeachable (hack, cough, retch) sourcing mustn't be sullied, click here; to support the old version which for eleven years has carried the same contradictions, duplications, circumlocutions, elegant variation, and dada details, click here. EEng 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I am always happy to receive friendly advice. While in the end I have to do what I think will be best and most effective, it is never a waste of time and effort to exhort your fellow man to follow the better angels of their natures. EEng 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: Well, I try to refrain from posting general commentary about other editors on-wiki, because I rarely find it to be a productive exercise; but I think I made my thoughts on this particular discussion quite clear. I'll keep an eye on that RFC, but I'm not keen on commenting, because I think it's not unlikely that the matter will come to admin attention again, and I've already taken the trouble to familiarize myself with some of it, so I'd rather remain uninvolved. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Such wise restraint! EEng 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel Shamir

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel Shamir. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sheila Rashid article reverting and adding allegations made by Indian Army

Hi, recently you reverted an edit I made on the said page on the pretext that it was doubling contradictions and was soundbyte. Kindly explain to me your objections and why the statements she made herself after the controversy were removed along with the Army's statement. Also, I reverted your edit please don't think I am engaging in some edit war. I have already added a discussion on the article talk page. AnadiDoD (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@AnadiDoD: By reverting repeatedly, you are edit-warring: just saying you aren't doesn't make it so. I will respond on the talk page, which is the right place for that discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Le Guin story

I saw your responses and will look through in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I found something I thought you might be interested in. I sell old sf magazines, and I was listing the August 1964 Amazing Stories and found it had a short story by Le Guin, "Selection", that I'd never heard of. According to ISFDB it's never been reprinted unless you count one of the UPD reprint magazines including it in 1970. I'm surprised to find any of her early work omitted from collections; presumably it's not very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Yes indeed; when writing Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography I found (partly thanks to you asking me to dredge through ISFDB) that there were a number of stories never discussed by the literature. The imbalances in the coverage are quite fascinating, really; I mean Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness are superb, but she's written other stories that seem to completely fly under the radar. I'd be interested to see if there's renewed interest in her work after her death; who knows, it might even spur some new anthologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Just read it; it's fairly traditional sf, mildly amusing. I don't think this one will ever be anthologized! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, one can hope. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Message in my talk page

Hi Vanamonde. I have asked you two questions in my talk page User_talk:BiObserver#Iranian_politics_general_sanctions_notice. I would appreciate if you respond there. Best, Taha (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_29"