User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read about Socrates

Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miriam Makeba

The article Miriam Makeba you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miriam Makeba 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallelujah Chorus

Not enough people voiced for a stand-alone article, but I said several times that Messiah Part II is about the structure of that piece, and not trivia around one movement, so I actually preferred that been taken out. I will watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I found consensus for a merger; that does not necessarily mean a merger of all information. It is up to the folks performing the merger, and anybody interested in either page, to determine what is worth merging and what is not. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not looking forward to any of the content about standing during it, or popular use, to a very specialized article on musical structure. Why did you say Messiah Part II, and not Messiah? That article is at least interested in history. I watch it as critically, of course: it was the first FA I ever was part of. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I said "relevant information" when closing; if folks decide that there is nothing that is relevant that is not in the merge target, that's fine. You're right about the target: I misread that. I will modify my rationale accordingly. Vanamonde (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy accusation by Sabbattino

I am not related to the edits in the mentioned pages, but this user has a history of similar edits in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vilnius or other Lithuania-related pages where he tends to push pro-Polish POV without backing it up with reliable sources. In addition, he was already topic-banned in the past for similar behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• has a history of similar edits - which edits? What about listing my criminal edits to verify the accusations?

I have introduced the subject of Krajowcy to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, my text about Ruthenians in Lithuanian historiography has been removed. It was Sabbatino, who removed my sourced text [1] commenting POV statements don't belong here, later edited by Hebel.

• I was topic banned in 2009, when the majority of current editors didn't partcipate yet. You have joined in 2013.

Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236: What do you want from me? This does not appear to be related to your topic ban, and I do not have the time to investigate some other disagreement in depth. Vanamonde (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's not related, why is it published? Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236: Sorry, I still do not understand why you are bringing this up. Sabbatino accused you of some things at the ANI report. However, your topic ban has nothing to do with those edits: you are topic banned from the topic of the Soviet Union. Why are you now bothered over what Sabbatino said? It is no longer relevant to anything. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand dignity, honor, false accusations, defamation, slander? Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand all of those things, although legal notions like "slander" have no relevance on Wikipedia. The fact is that nobody took much notice of Sabbatino's statement. You have not been sanctioned directly withe respect to Lithuanian or Polish topics. Like I said, I do not have the time to dig into the accusations that Sabbatino is making, and I am not going to sanction them for something purely on your say-so. If you want to try to get them sanctioned for those comments, that is your affair, though I would not advise it. I suggest you find an avenue to constructively build content, rather than spending most of your time in conflict with other editors. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as 2017 Tehran attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. GreyShark (dibra) 07:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: You do realize that a) it's impossible to edit a hot topic without accidentally performing reverts due to intermediate revisions being lost, b) there's a BLP exception to 1RR that was entirely justified in this case, and c) that you're dropping this notice on an admin's talk page, right? Not that I object to being reminded, as such, but it would help if you maintained a sense of perspective here. Vanamonde (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is merely a standard notification.GreyShark (dibra) 08:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

...which just proves my point. Vanamonde (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

OTD June 9

You moved Bhumibol Adulyadej to Ineligible for "unsourced content"[2]. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what you're referring to. If that was an error, then let's move this guy in for the 70th anniversary. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Apologies for the delayed response, busy in RL. It was not an error. The etymology section is unsourced; the paragraph about what people call him is not sourced; some of the information about his family (all living people, and covered by BLP) is unsourced; and there's numerous other fairly exceptional claims that have no references. Material does not have to be tagged for it to be problematic; and in this case, I was busy, and neglected to tag it. Vanamonde (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

USS Quaker City (1854)

What was the reason my blurb was ineligible? Adamthrasher (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adamthrasher: The article is completely unreferenced. Read WP:V and WP:CITEHOW. Vanamonde (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I will add a reference. I'm sure a fellow nautica aficionado like yourself would not be impartial to seeing the 150th anniversary of an event as significant as this go uncommemorated, even if it is through a venue as modest as Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthrasher (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do, but that does not guarantee appearing at OTD tomorrow. If you make sure the article is in good shape, it will remain eligible for OTD in forthcoming years. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a citation regarding the date. If it pleases you, the article can go back in now. Adamthrasher (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Adamthrasher: First off, only 5-6 articles are showcased at OTD on any given day; just being eligible is not enough, though and article that remains eligible will likely be featured at some point. But this article is still patently not eligible. ALL of the content needs to be sourced, not just a date. Vanamonde (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The other admin changed the reason to "date not in article". There were five articles on the page when I put Quaker City in, then there were six. Then you put your drivel in, that made seven. My article didn't have any outstanding tags before you put one there. I don't think it's fair to put an article to undue scrutiny just because you wanted to make room for your blurb. If you're going to pretend that people would rather read about nips driving trucks into people or whatever then you're going to put your own blurbs in jeopardy as well, just sayin. Adamthrasher (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered looking up what the other admin did, because the fact remains that your article was not, and still is not, eligible for OTD, because much of the content is not sourced. You want to complain about somebody changing the reason, go right ahead but its not going to get you anywhere. Instead, I'd suggest you get the article into good shape, and maybe it will be featured next year. Vanamonde (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons media on the main page

Hello. Thanks for addressing the error report regarding the ITN image, but please remember to either upload a local copy of a file or list it at WP:CMP (and wait for KrinkleBot to transclude it at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en) before placing it on the main page. Otherwise, it will remain vulnerable to replacement by a vandal until the aforementioned bot detects its use and triggers the protection. (In this instance, it took about nine minutes. The duration varies and the bot sometimes experiences outages lasting a day or more.)

Thanks again. —David Levy 07:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@David Levy: I will admit that I am not the most well-versed in matters related to images, but in this case, it did seem to be a local copy that I added. When I look at this, the page has a link saying "view on commons"; it also has a url beginning "en.wiki". It is therefore a local copy. So, where did I go wrong? Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Files stored at the Wikimedia Commons – and their descriptions – are accessible through all Wikimedia Foundation projects. Note the banner displayed on the page to which you linked:

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.

It isn't a local copy of the image. As stated, both the file and the information shown have been relayed from the Wikimedia Commons. This works at any Wikimedia Foundation project (example), but cascading protection is wiki-specific, so uploading a local copy under the same filename (at which point the "View on Commons" tab, banner and Commons description page mirror will no longer be displayed here) is necessary to trigger it.

The WP:CMP method (through which a Commons bot is instructed to protect the file there) is a simpler alternative, but it requires a bit of waiting. —David Levy 09:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@David Levy: I see: thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up the mess...

... left by סמאל הנוקם, and by my attempts - without deletion privileges - to tidy them up! Very glad you stepped in so swiftly and restored service for Wikipedia readers and editors alike. zazpot (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. There were three admins involved, I think, so it got wiped clean pretty quick...Vanamonde (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Seen, will be a few hours before I reply...Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

MyTutor

Hi @Vanamonde93, I know that Wikipedia can't be used for promotion, but I believe that MyTutor is of wider interest. The company's involvement with university access schemes makes it interesting for a wide audience. Please consider revoking your deletion, or can you help me understand how to improve the page to fit the standards? Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatank (talk • contribs)

@Annatank: That is a possibility, though I think it is unlikely. What you need to do is to determine if the topic meets WP:GNG; it needs to be described substantively be multiple, independent, reliable sources. If you find such sources, you can base an article on them. Vanamonde (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

OK i will gather sources - thank you! shall i put them in a list at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatank (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Annatank: You should read WP:CITEHOW for help. Also, I'd strongly suggest using the WP:AFC process to create your article once you are done. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Starship Troopers

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Starship Troopers 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 Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Starship Troopers

The article Starship Troopers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Starship Troopers 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 Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, nice work! My only query was on the sentence that goes "Rico himself is given five lashes for firing a rocket at a friendly soldier during a drill with armored suits and simulated nuclear weapons." - From memory, I don't think he is disciplined for firing the rocket, but rather for "cheating" by not doing so using the electronic systems in the suit, which was the purpose of the drill? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: Thanks! You are quite right: he skips using the suit display, doesn't see his fellows because of that, and kills them; but I thought it was a little too confusing to mention all of this, and the fact is he was discliplined for firing a rocket and killing people. Do you think the current version makes it sound like it was done with malice? If so, I guess we can try to tweak it. Vanamonde (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

AIV report

I was not aware that you were an admin at the time I made the comment. There are however several issues with the report that I feel need to be raised.

I've already commented that I consider two warnings months apart to be insufficient warning, but I recognise that many reports to WP:AIV can be mildly preemptive and that particular detail is not worth arguing at length about. You've mentioned twice now that they have removed a warning from their talk page. I'm not sure if you're implying that they are not allowed to do so. Please note that all three content additions since then have had a source.

I would like to understand why you said that creating a page does not exempt somebody from adding sources. Such a statement would seem to fly right in the face of the realms of advice New Page Patrollers are given. Except in cases involving content about living persons – in which case articles need to be BLPPRODed, trimmed back to a stub, AFDed or G10ed, depending on context – there is no requirement to cite content unless it is challenged.

In this instance, List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket does contain content about living persons, but you have not instigated any of these remedies, and have not edited the page to remove the offending content. Reporting an inexperienced editor for vandalism simply because they are in the good faith process of writing an article is a clear violation of WP:BITE. Blocking is not cleanup.

I'm not intending to be difficult, and I do not pretend to have your experience, but I have been around on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect for some time now and have seen some frankly beautiful examples of the implementation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE there – experienced editors, in some cases even ARBCOM members spending upwards of an hour working kindly with blocked users harassing the channel – and that has deeply affected my attitude towards new users and Wikipedia in general. I won't take this issue any further. My comments are here for your consideration. Have a wonderful day. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

TheDragonFire: Since you did me the courtesy of a long and civil explanation, allow me to give you the same. Let me begin by saying that it is always possible that I was in error, but I certainly take WP:BITE very seriously; indeed, I received some opposition at my RFA for assuming too much good faith in disruptive users. In this particular case, though, there's one small point you are definitely wrong about: AIV is not only for vandals. Other disruptive users also get reported and blocked there, and my report was specifically about unsourced content. I did not accuse anybody of vandalism. Which brings me to the content in question. The fact is that the threshold that a page needs to meet for it not to be sent to deletion during NPP is very low. Merely unsourced content is accepted there; but the fact is that WP:V is a core policy, and repeated failure to comply with it is blockable. That is why all the RC patrol tools have a separate revert button for unsourced content; and that is why the admin blocking menus have a separate option for unsourced content blocks. When it comes to warning a user for such edits, we certainly have the option of warning them up to level 4 before reporting them. However, this is not required by policy; policy requires that they be sufficiently warned. My personal interpretation of "sufficient" is that I need to be sure that the user had read and preferably comprehended any warning; and if they then repeat the behavior, that is worthy of action. That is why I mention the removal of the previous warning. Users are free to remove warnings from their talk pages; but removal of a warning is generally considered evidence of having read the warning. After having removed this warning, this user proceeded to add content to the article they had written (incidentally, now at AfD for BLP reasons; read insufficiently sourced content about living people) that was only supported by a youtube clip, supposedly of the actual incidents. So, I reported them. The report in this case was removed as stale, which was not a correct response; problematic editors, if they are not blocked, must certainly be warned instead. Nonetheless, the reason I reported them was because there was room here for a judgement call, which I as an involved editor should not be the one to make. If there was no room for judgement (such as with an editor who simply adds profanity in every edit) I would simply block, because policy allows me to do that as an involved editor. So to go back to where I began, it is possible that I reacted too soon, but my response was based on 4+ years of dealing with editors adding unsourced commentary to articles in the Indic sphere, and observing the pattern that those edits usually take. I hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning is well thought out, so thank you. If I had been in the situation, I probably would have addressed the inappropriateness of YouTube citations directly on their talk page one more time before reporting (with a personal message rather than simply with automated templates), but given that I was quite sharp with you, I am probably not one to talk. I've always been aware of warning users about insufficiently sourced content, but before now I had not really considered how this applies to new pages, so that's definitely food for thought. I find opposition at my RFA for assuming too much good faith in disruptive users quite amusing, but those are the weird and wonderful ways of RFA I suppose. This is not the first time I've gotten into strife hanging around at AIV, so I should probably just get the message. I'm sorry for this to be our first interaction, and I wish you well. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Since you followed it up with a very civil response, that's quite alright. Have a nice day. Vanamonde (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cenker article DYK

Thanks for your comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert J. Cenker. Is this stalled as long as RadioFan does not reply? RobP (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

RadioFan replied - and I find their response confusing. They once again insinuated that the hook does not have anything to with the Cenker article!!!! But as they said to move ahead, I guess we are good?? RobP (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: We are good with respect to their objections, but as someone else has noted, we need Piotrus to sign off on all the criteria. Vanamonde (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I see it has been signed-off on again. Thanks for getting that resolved! RobP (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

RM at Talk:How I Met Your Music

I started an RM discussion at Talk:How I Met Your Music, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Apologies for not getting back to the discussion yet - I have a number of things on my plate right now. I've started looking into the issues and I expect to have some proposals in shape by early next week. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: No worries. If we're going to take some time to do this thing, then at least we should do it properly. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! Vanamonde (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "the most infamous, and probably the most well-studied, episodes in U.S. foreign relations, and as such is of great importance. ... a highly complex, and highly contentious, topic"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting others contribution(hardwork) irresponsibly

Hello Vanamonde i have been watching you and gone through your history. You are reverting other contribution on wikipedia on the excuse of "sources" when the sources are already present. The Sources you Like are only considered as "source" and source which don't suits your viewpoint are Not. Could you please let me know what kind of sources are reliable according to you, so i include in my edit.? And Please dont discourse new users/contributors in Wikipedia(Open source). Thank you --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@WikiBodhiVamsa: Please read WP:RS. What I like has nothing to do with it. In general, Wikipedia considers scholarly sources to be the most reliable, and does not consider court proceedings to be reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: This is not court proceeding, this is already Convicted by Special court appointed by Supreme Court of India accepted the pre-planned Conspiracy. Already read the WP:RS. And supreme-court order is considered as as Reliable source. All Convicted(not proceeding) conspire to target only Hindu Devotees(S-6 bogie) in Final verdict. Thirty-one people were convicted and 63 others, including the main accused Mastermind Farooq Bhana on May 18.

Source Reference-1 READ Death for 11, life sentence for 20 in Godhra train burning case (Times of India).

@WikiBodhiVamsa: Yes, the court convicted 31 people, and this conviction is widely reported by reliable sources. Therefore, the article says that 31 people were convicted. Likewise, the court accepted that particular explanation; therefore, the article mentions that the court accepted this explanation. However, not every reliable source accepts this explanation; therefore, per WP:DUE, we cannot use the court's explanation in Wikipedia's voice, because the court's ruling, by itself, is not a reliable source for anything other than the ruling itself. Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry, but i disagree with you. If court verdict by Supreme-court of india which is highest Judiciary not consider as reliable source then none of the private news article(tabloid) consider as reliable source. Disrespecting SC in india is Criminal offence and SC can take action on basis of suo motu against him or institute. SC verdicts are Valuable & respected in india. i don't know how any indian can say "court's ruling is not a reliable source". Court verdict is more Reliable and valuable than private tabloid news article some of them are paid. i think almost 985 wiki article were based on Final court verdict. --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@WikiBodhiVamsa: I'm afraid what you agree or disagree with does not matter; this is Wikipedia policy we are talking about. Please go read WP:RS like I asked you to; and since you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia is committing a criminal offence, please read WP:LEGAL as well. Oh, and you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry sir, you mistaken. i didn't said wikipedia, i said about you sir. you are refusing the verdict of india's Highest judiciary body as a reliable source. and reverting my constructive work in wikipedia article and indulge in editing war. You might have far-left Communist views which might be biased and it reflects your Hinduphobic viewpoint. This is agasint wikipedia ethics. this is my opinion. Thank you :) --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page until you have something constructive to say. Vanamonde (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sir, i want your help. i am learning editing in wikipedia. i want your help please. WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want my help, then begin by reading, comprehending, and abiding by the policies and guidelines I have linked here. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:LEGAL, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, for a start. Vanamonde (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

[3] --- He reverted again. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Tyler: Saw that. Will deal with it by and by. He has no leg to stand on, but no point in reverting him again. Might end up taking them to AE. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Satuit Technologies Deletion

Hi Vanamonde93, I noticed that you deleted the Wikipedia entry for Satuit Technologies. Please can you reinstate this page. We've been inundated with emails from people informing us of this deletion. Not sure why you chose to delete this page... There are about 20 other competitors with Wikipedia pages in our market space so why specifically target us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.113.246 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not being targeted in any way. The page was nominated for uncontroversial deletion, because it did not demonstrate why the subject was notable. Any topic that is not notable will eventually have its page deleted. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and so we are not really bothered by whether competitors have pages or not. Given that this was deleted via WP:PROD, under normal circumstances I would be required to restore the page upon request; but since you have an obvious conflict of interest in this regard, I am not going to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for showing me the RfC at WP:INDICSCRIPT. I updated that with some information. Would you please look over what I did and confirm that it is correct? Check the version I published, please. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: That looks fine, thanks for doing that (and for the coffee :) ) Vanamonde (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Öget Öktem Tanör

On 22 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Öget Öktem Tanör, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Öget Öktem Tanör, Turkey's first neuropsychologist, was charged with "terrorism propaganda" in 2017 for signing a petition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Öget Öktem Tanör. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Öget Öktem Tanör), 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.

IronGargoyle (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for helping out at ITN. It's usually a good idea to remove the oldest entry when you add one, so the ITN section length stays about the same. Thank you again! --BorgQueen (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: You're welcome. I debated removing the last entry twice; the first time, somebody else got to it first, the second time it did not seem necessary, as the blank space in DYK was quite small. I'll keep it in mind, though. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

SPI ping

• I blame Ms Sarah Welch for making me waste my time on this mess but I think I'm done with it, but while I was about wasting my time on this, I came across User:Saffron Army that you may want to check out. At the end of the day, I think the two groups are the same or are at the least they are off-wiki connected and we're just being trolled massively out here. I'm sure that the geolocation vs the claimed location will play a part in the analysis of a CU if they are alerted to it. —SpacemanSpiff 11:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• @SpacemanSpiff: Ah well, understandable. I'll leave the behavioral evaluation to somebody else, I guess it's not terribly urgent as long as he is topic banned...my gut feeling was something similar. A person doesn't make two socks to fight with (for whatever reason) while having a real fight with socks of other masters. Either the whole bunch of them are related, or Tyler is unconnected to any. I'll keep an eye on Saffron Army. The name itself has WP:RGW vibes. Vanamonde (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Howl's Moving Castle (film)

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Howl's Moving Castle (film) to Good Article status.

Good Work! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Tombs of Atuan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Tombs of Atuan 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) 08:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Tombs of Atuan

The article The Tombs of Atuan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Tombs of Atuan 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) 12:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hsiung Feng III

Shenanigans continue on Hsiung Feng III immediately following semi-protection wearing off. You may or may not remember the mess of a discussion on the talk page over whether or not tabloids were reliable sources for the rocket being capable of hypersonic speeds. Anyway, it's clearly the same IP hopper. Lizard (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's already been protected, by RegentsPark: thanks, RP. Vanamonde (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cholera outbreaks and pandemics

On 26 June 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cholera outbreaks and pandemics, 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 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OTD June 25

I realize you needed an additional item for Main Page balance, but three things: 1) Mir is already on a different day. Be sure you check the article talk page to see if the article is normally included elsewhere. 2) Please write blurbs in the past tense. 3) There were plenty of other eligible articles. In fact, because there were already two 21st century items (also not ideal, because WP:RECENT), probably the 1940 item would have been better (chosen over the 1910 one because that would make 3 US items). The other problem with Mir on this date is that June 25 is not one of the most important dates for the space station. I don't mean to be discouraging. It's just that there's a lot of nuance to OTD maintenance. WP:OTDRULES is where I codified most of it. I was out almost all day on Sunday, otherwise I would have informed you earlier about this. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 06:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Agreed about 1 and 2. 3 is a lot messier, though. There will always be a number of eligible items. The challenge is to find one that is in decent shape, that is not repeating a recent topic, etc, etc. These days I appear to be often the only admin at ERRORS; so I do the best I can, as fast as I can. It's much easier to second guess these choices after the fact. In this particular case, we would have been featuring the 1940 item less than a month after we featured the Dunkirk evacuation, which is closely related. My point, I guess, is that yes, I could have kept searching for a better option; but if we really want a better main page, we need more scrutiny before things appear, not after. Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What's more, I spend enough time as is correcting or changing OTD entries because they do not meet our basic policies. I was therefore more concerned with making sure the entries I added met the bare minimum for verifiability and factual accuracy, than with making sure I featured something on the most important day for that subject. And while I'm addressing issues in entries that are on the main page at the time, that's likely to remain my priority. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a balancing act, that's for sure. Even though I feel like I've significantly tightened up my standards for articles over the last several months, apparently they're still too low. —howcheng {chat} 07:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth posting an OTD-improvement queue somewhere? Maybe at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries there should be a standing subpage listing articles with notable anniversaries that are seen as below-par so folks can work on them (and remove from list) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Cas, I like that idea. That way Howcheng can continue to work on the queues, but other folks can also see them and make improvements without having to go looking for the page, and maybe folks can spot errors before The Rambling Man looks at them the day before they go on the main page (at which point they go to ERRORS where there often isn't enough activity to prevent the problems from hitting the main page. Now there's a link at ERRORS to tomorrow's OTD, presumably updated by the bot; perhaps we could make a similar thing happen, but for a few more days in advance? And this could be, as Cas suggested, at a subpage of selected anniversaries. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the biggest problem is that often updates aren't made until the day before and that means two things: (a) only admins can make changes to the template and (b) the chances of errors or bad articles getting to the main page is substantially higher, particularly as so few admins seem to work around the main page areas. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, I have made this - happy if folks play with it/change colours/make more elegant/put in different place etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/Articles for improvement

Thanks, Cas. I'm wondering if we could use Template:Tomorrow and Template:Day+1 to transclude the entries for the next two days onto that page; I know I'd find it helpful. Vanamonde (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I am sure someone can make it look and flow nicer with a different template, so have at it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Miriam Makeba

On 27 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miriam Makeba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that South African singer and anti-apartheid activist Miriam Makeba (pictured) was followed by the CIA and the FBI after she married Black Panther Stokely Carmichael? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miriam Makeba. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Miriam Makeba), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

hi, the original was- A record liner stated that Makeba's "multifaceted" music "knocks down walls, bridges, barriers, and transforms a dozen different languages into a universal tongue." Her music does not knock down bridges, her music bridges barriers. At least that is my reading. Some kind of powerful comma.```` billb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billb (talk • contribs) 22:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you are correct, not sure where that error crept in from....Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda! Vanamonde (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Main page balancing

Can you point me to where there was previous discussion establishing consensus to "balance" the main page with old DYK hooks? I understand the aesthetic appeal, but it seems to run afoul of the principle that DYKs can only show up once, and the recent discussion of this issue at WT:DYK showed that a fair number of people (including myself) were questioning this. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle: To be quite honest, I'm not certain; it's just been accepted practice for a while, certainly since before I got the bit. I saw a couple of posts at WP:ERRORS asking admins to do this; the next time I encountered the problem of imbalance, I just did it myself. The theory, I guess, is that those DYKs have already been approved. Given that DYK is not a competition or reward, I don't think there's really a problem with it. The issue at WT:DYK was not about this practice; it was about the fact that I had done it hastily on one occasion, and had therefore let a hook run thrice. Hooks run twice not infrequently, AFAIK. The Rambling Man might be able to tell you better than I. Vanamonde (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no "consensus", simply an application of common sense. The left side of the main page is fixed pretty much on a daily basis by the TFA blurb and that day's DYKs. The right hand side can afford to have items dropped off if it's too long, but seldom to add items if they're too short. So we just re-add the odd old DYK. We can't remove DYKs because people "own" them and that makes for too much over-sensitive discussion. I'm not sure there's a problem, certainly nothing our readers have noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde, The Rambling Man, You both raise good points, but might I suggest taking some DYK hooks from farther back in the archive if you're going to use them to balance the Main Page? That way people are less likely to remember and reflect negatively on the fact that they "just saw that" recent hook. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea; and if I have the time, I think I will try to do that. Further back in the archive, though, often means many changes since it's been reviewed; thus rendering the DYK review potentially irrelevant. I'll keep it in mind, though. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Uroš Macerl

Hello! Your submission of Uroš Macerl at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart News

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Breitbart News. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Soothe" page resubmission request

Hello, The page "Soothe" was once deleted by you due to issues with notability. I have been editing and making changes to the page and it is ready to be published. It is currently saved as 'Darft:Soothe'. Please let me know if there is any other issue. Thank you. Echoasis (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Echoasis: Thanks for making the effort. I believe that your questions have been more or less addressed by Swister Twister at AFC. Please take a look at WP:NOTPROMO before proceeding. Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)