User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Nussbaum quote

Hi Van, I am not sure what you are saying here. I asked for an RfC feedback on one issue only, viz., whether the Nussbaum quote is fit for the lead. I am not sure what your proposal is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: My proposal was offered to placate Ankit2, with respect to their issues with the framing of Nussbaum's quote. It was to replace it with "Scholars studying the 2002 riots state that they were premeditated and constituted a form of ethnic cleansing, and that the state government and law enforcement were complicit in the violence that occurred". I made it here. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't notice that there was a specific proposal and an agreement had been reached. In that case, an RfC is unnecessary. Perhaps I should withdraw it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No worries, but yes, I think a withdrawal would be the simplest outcome. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

IP hopper on Taiwan related pages

Hey Vanamonde93, I have seen your recent warnings on other user pages regarding the sock of Wikiexplorer13 (talk · contribs). I have no objection to that but do wish to inform you that there is another IP hopper who is back now. The reason behind this is two-fold, (a) to differentiate between Wikiexplorer13 (talk · contribs) and Taiwan (though their modus operandi is the same the IPs they use differ) (b) to ask for suggestions to avoid another mess. I believe you have been sort of involved with this one in the past. You can find more details here User:Mfb/Taiwanese articles. The IP has already disrupted a few pages related to Taiwan Sky Bow, Tuo Chiang-class corvette, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo and Sky Sword. Based on past experience, the IP will hound me into other pages I edit namely India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related. Any advice on how to deal with this given the area has already seen enough disruption from other sources? In the past we have requested semi-protection for these pages but that takes some time. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I know this one; it's the IP who keeps disrupting stuff related to missiles and weapons, is it not? I've blocked them a few times in the past, and semi-protected some pages. There's not really a magic bullet for this; but good documentation helps; a long-term abuse page, for instance, may allow us to find blockable ranges, or to find pages were permanent PC- or semi-protection would be justified. Also, just for the record, I have no sympathy for Wikiexplorer, and IIRC have IAR blocked them too, on occasion. It's just that in reverting sockpuppets, we have to be careful with edit-summaries and such, because the rest of the community still requires our courtesy, and should know why any given edit was made. Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Thanks for your advice. I might create a LTA page sometime in the user but for now we only have User:Mfb/Taiwanese articles. I have discussed a range block with other admins in the past but this has been turned down since the editor uses a VPN with a wide range of IPs ranging from Japan, to US, to UK, to China, to Australia and so on. I will mention per User:Mfb/Taiwanese articles or reverting Taiwan IP in my edit summaries for better explanation. Please let me know if this sounds good. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: If you've documented everything there is to document on that userpage, that should be okay, too. We unfortunately have little ability to deal with vandals who have access to VPNs, so there isn't much more I can suggest. Vanamonde (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Hi, believe you or not, this and this is a formal violation of 1RR. Whereas I sincerely support your edits, someone may report you (that is not a joke, unfortunately). I stop editing so far to diminish the amount of pretexts for wikilawyering. Let me know when you finish. In future, when you plan to remove some text (which is automatically considered a revert, alas), it is better to coordinate our efforts to avoid formal 1RR violations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Are you referring to the fact that my edits were non-consecutive because we were both editing at once (in different parts of the article) or is there something else I have missed? Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I looked more closely at the history. We didn't have any edit conflicts because you were working exclusively on one section, which I didn't touch; so for all practical purposes my edits were consecutive, and I doubt very much anyone is interested in hauling me off to ANEW. That said, you're right about technical violations, so what I am going to do is leave a standing offer on the talk page to self-revert if anybody is unhappy with my edits (which are, after all, mostly grammatical and format corrections). Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sure any reasonable admin will agree that was not an edit war. However, a literal interpretation of the revert definition does not discriminate our case (independent editing of different sections) from a real revert. I concede, that is stupid, however, tensions around this article are so high that some people may try to use this hole in the revert definition to make our life more difficult. Again, I am perfectly ok with what you are doing, but the question is not in me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see how it goes. I've left a message on the talk, and I'm done with the page for today (though I'll be online); I have RL work to catch up with. So at this point if somebody takes me to ANEW instead of replying on the talk, they're going to hurt their own reputation more than mine. Vanamonde (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. >>> Participate in the June elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carles Puigdemont

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carles Puigdemont. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi V

I honestly thought someone would more reasonably look into the deletion of E-money's page. He's a very notable person and worth of mention on Wikipedia but because he lives a very non-social/media life, it's difficult to talk about him on Wikipedia because they don't accept news from blogs -- not realizing that in Nigeria blogs are the top visited news sources much more than newspapers. https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/NG

I have considered appealing this directly to Wikipedia body but not sure it's worth my time. I am just visiting the site now and noticing the notifications. This is not a good approach, people should apply contextual judgment to articles. Make some research to validate if an author's claims are true. A successful businessman should not have to participate in the stock market or mentioned on Forbes to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opatachibueze (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Opatachibueze: I'm afraid it isn't enough for the content in an article to be true for it to be included on Wikipedia. I could create an article which said "Vanamonde93 is a Wikipedia editor" and it would be true; but it would not demonstrate notability, which is required for every article on Wikipedia. In this case, I did not decide unilaterally to delete your page; there was a community discussion about it, and I judged that the consensus was to delete the article. If you think I made the wrong decision, you can take the matter to deletion review, but I suggest that your time would be better spent finding genuinely reliable and substantive sources about your subject, and if such are not available, moving on and working on a different article. Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving Rajneesh to Osho

Hi,

I've observed that you have marked page moving of Rajneesh to OSHO.

The change didn't happened, can you please try again. I've more supporting doc this time. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Accesscrawl (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: I moved the page based on a talk page discussion which was closed by No such user. Their close found consensus to move the page. However, the discussion was later reopened as a result of this (which also required the page to be moved back to "Rajneesh", the original title), and I cannot see any clear consensus for the move after that. If you still want it moved, I suggest opening another discussion and pinging all the previous participants. Vanamonde (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde this isn't available anymore. Can you please help me pinning the people. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: I don't understand why you can't access it; the move review discussion is completely accessible at the link I shared. What you need to do is to go to the talk page of the article (it's at Talk:Rajneesh) and open a discussion. Please read this to see how such a discussion should be worded. Then, type {{ping|USERNAME}} (replacing "USERNAME" with the name of the user you want to ping), sign your post, and save, and that user will receive a notification of your discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proxy war brewing

• TLDR version: I believe another proxy war is brewing between both sides sanctioned at WP:AE and if left unchecked will lead to the same situation in a few weeks.
• Long version: This is not a complaint against anyone (both sides are to blame) or an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP but an attempt to avoid a repetition of the series of events over the last few months. After the unsuccessful appeal of the WP:AE, we have a new set of editors (from both sides) picking up the threads left over by the earlier ones and having the same discussions and constant state of reverts. This is currently playing out on Kashmiris, Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Violence against women during the partition of India, WP:AE and I foresee this flowing over to other pages soon (Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,List of wars involving Pakistan). Some of these editors have editing in the general area for some time and are engaging in edits without any consensus (given the sudden vacuum). Then there are other editors who have no contribution to the area even remotely and have appeared out of nowhere to engage in the same discussions. Then there are other editors who precisely show up as a show of support on these pages after an interval of weeks (even months) and have no Wikipedia contributions otherwise. And to add to the mix we have socks of a blocked user hounding other editors and newly created accounts which are suspiciously super familiar with Wikipedia policy. On purpose, I have chosen not to take names of editors which fall in each particular category but those are not hard to deduce. This leads to be believe that this is a form of proxy war (and I have no substantial proof to back this up) because though the actors are new the discussions are eerily the same. Disclosure: I am a party to List of wars involving Pakistan talk page discussion and have reverted one edit on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 for lack of consensus. In general, I wish to stay away from this mess (or atleast I view it as a mess) but this has a strong deja vu feeling to it. I reckon we will go through numerous WP:SPI, WP:ANI and other forums if some sort of corrective action is not taken now (this could be even limited to full content protection on all pages). I am pinging @GoldenRing, Sandstein, Sitush, Winged Blades of Godric, and NeilN: some editors/admins who have either shown concern over this in the past or are involved in some of the recent forum discussions. Sorry, if this seems to be waste of time for anyone or an over exaggeration of events. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  I've been noticing some of this, but I've been caught up in some quite unnecessarily unpleasant main page stuff. I'm going to try to go through some of this tomorrow. It has been fairly clear to me for a while that the Indo-Pak conflict area, and the broader religious/political conflict in the subcontinent, attracts not just sockpuppetry but a degree of off-wiki coordination. Unfortunately, our tools for dealing with this are limited. Some protections may certainly be in order, and possibly some topic bans too, but that requires further examination. Vanamonde (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I shudder to think what the Urdu and Hindi versions of these articles are like. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've often wondered, and hadn't had the courage to investigate. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Being a native speaker I just checked the Hindi version of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and The LEAD and Infobox are same as English version. The body clearly needs a lot of translation and cleanup. But it is good to point out the Good work of our Hindi Editors in maintaining a Neutral LEAD and Infobox. Hope it is of some relief to you both :D --DBigXray 15:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not active in the topic area and am not watching any related articles, but if actionable evidence of misconduct is brought to AE I'm ready to take action if necessary. Sandstein 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as I said in the recent AE report and amendment request, to my mind there is definitely off-wiki co-ordination going on. Whether that takes the form of emails or some site like Orkut (which used to be a favourite) is another matter. The latter type, of course, might actually be prove-able but then there are so many closed discussion groups around nowadays. I think we may reach the point where a vast swathe of Indo-Pakistan articles need a one-revert rule, at least until perhaps the BJP government is no more. The rise of this antagonism since that of Modi is noticeable: he has at once inspired the Hindutva and pissed off the Muslim. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned at how quickly others have rushed in to fill the void and not taken the underlying message to heart. But (absent clear evidence of sockpuppetry) we also need to give editors who are new to the area a chance to prove themselves and improve their editing before leaping in with (more) drastic action. In other words, a war "brewing" is not the time for strong action, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• I've looked through this, and it isn't as bad as I had thought. I was under the impression that the activity of some accounts had picked up after the topic-ban, but it really just looks as though there has been a shift in activity towards controversial topics, which is less suspicious. The conflict over the "result" section of the 1965 war infobox is the most concerning, because that infobox parameter has been a focus of previous conflict. I will do my best to monitor this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

MilosHaran

Hi Vanamonde93. While I was watching my Edit count section via the tool on the link, I recalled that when I was still a newbie on enwiki, on October 20, 2016, I received a message with a notification about the speedy deletion of MilosHaran. I did not know in that time where should I ask for more information, due to Wikipedia's rather confusing bureaucracies. The thing is that I did not create that page, and I do not know who or what MilosHaran is. Since I am not its creator, I would like to have MilosHaran removed from the list of pages created by me, as showed by the tool on the link above. I can ask for this at the Village pump but it is probably better to talk with you, since you are the administrator who deleted the page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like you popped a welcome message on a user talk page creating it, that user then (by mistake) moved their talk page to article space, and the page got speedily deleted, and that's why you're credited with creating MilosHaran. The easiest way to deal with this is to remove your name from the revision history since the xtools script probably just gets its data from there. I'll leave it to Vanamonde to do that. --regentspark (comment) 23:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: As RegentsPark says, this is because a newbie moved their user talk to article space. Now there isn't a clean way to remove your name from this, because revision-deleting it won't actually remove your name from the log. What I could do is to restore the page and move it back to the User Talk space. I'm not keen on this, because the user has since been renamed, so it would involve suppressing a redirect detailing a user rename. I could still do it if there was a very good reason, but honestly, is it that big of a deal? If you're worried that anyone will judge your record based on that, any administrator can see the deleted edit, and will see that it does not reflect badly on you. I had three deleted articles in my xtools results when I ran successfully at RFA. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Since it is a complicated thing, it is better to leave it as it is now. Having MilosHaran in the list of the articles created by me does not cause any damage. Thanks Vanamonde93 and @RegentsPark:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for being understanding. Vanamonde (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (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) 04:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents

On 18 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Cuba seized the freighter Johnny Express, Manuel Noriega helped negotiate the release of the captain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents), 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) 00:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kleeb lamduan

Hi Vanamonde93, this page was created as Kleeb Lamduan, moved to Kleeb Lamduan by Paul 012 without discussion, moved back by me without discussion (which is my mistake as I didn't see his previous move) and now moved back again with my attempt at discussion ignored. I left a contested deletion message at talk:Kleeb lamduan which you have now deleted, and left a message at User talk:Paul 012 which I am yet to receive a response to. I will repeat what I said in both locations - all the sources I can find use Kleeb Lamduan, including all those cited in the article, so per MOS:CAPS, that's what we should use. As I contested this deletion, I would have appreciated at least some sort of message as to why you were go ahead and do it anyway, instead of just completely ignoring me. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: I apologize: it was not my intention to ignore your message at all; I check the talk pages of articles I delete, but I must have missed this one (possibly, I only checked the talk page of the page I moved, rather than that of the target). I am about to log off, but I will revert this myself as soon as I return, and I would have no objections if you performed an IAR revert yourself. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you quick response. I know it's easy to miss these things sometimes, and I'm sorry I got a little annoyed, I probably shouldn't be editing when I'm already in a bad mood. There's no hurry so it can wait until you have time. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: That's alright. I believe I have fixed it now; do let me know if there's something else I need to do. Vanamonde (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ringo Choi Wai Wing

I nominated Ringo Choi Wai Wing for speedy deletion at 09:29, 18 June 2018. I think you must have deleted it because you deleted the article's talk page at 12:24, 18 June 2018 (talk page of a deleted article). By 13:05, 18 June 2018‎, the article creator had re-created it and since then, at 16:41, 18 June 2018, another editor has requested it be speedily deleted. It's been a busy day for Ringo! Is it time to salt him, not forgetting the original version, Ringo Choi? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: RegentsPark Got to it before me but between us we've deleted and salted both titles, and I've also left the user a warning. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Environmental inequality in Europe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Environmental inequality in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Amita Chapra

Do you have time to take a look at the issue I have raised at Talk:Amita Chapra? - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Strange. Yes, I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I really should have started that thread at the article talk page and pinged Lourdes. Must do better, as my teachers often said! - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE

How CAN we lift the "consensus required to restore challenged edits" restriction from that article and others? The admin who placed it is (self) indef blocked. Any discussion of removing it always falls through because of someone's veto.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Well, he indeffed himself, but more importantly is not an admin at this point, and cannot revoke the sanction. Since the restriction was (presumably) a sanction applied under AC/DS, and since we (presumably) do not have the consent of the imposing admin, we would need consensus among uninvolved administrators at AE or AN, or else an ARCA request. I presume that anyone can initiate such a discussion. To be completely honest, while I see the "consensus required" provision as being a net-negative, I don't feel strongly enough about it to initiate such a discussion myself. I would opine, were such opened. Vanamonde (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

FLC

Can you invite editors to leave their comments at the flc? Yashthepunisher (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: You could, but unless they are subject experts or FLC experts, such requests would verge on canvassing, so tread carefully. Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

RD

Please check: I noticed yesterday that Barry McDaniel died on 18 June, searched for references and nominated him for RD under 18 June. Was that the right place? Anything else I ned to do to raise attention? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was the right thing to do; and it looks like it was posted while I was busy elsewhere. Nice work, Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy that I didn't give up after my failure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lion Guard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lion Guard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ewitch51: Thanks for asking. I'm sorry to say I don't really have the time for this at the moment. Furthermore, though I've experienced plenty of incivility on Wikipedia, very little has been related to my WiR work. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for letting me know! Ewitch51 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Machine-learning to tag incivilities.I've a reason to be happy that most of these research-projects end up miles behind their goal....... ∯WBG^converse 13:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Waterboarding

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waterboarding. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the edit summary is misleading

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharmila_Thackeray&type=revision&diff=847862014&oldid=847851249 It is trivial nonsense probably but not unsourced. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 09:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

PLease ignore, from the diff it looked like the dog bite story was called unsourced. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 09:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was removing the material before the dog bite story. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I came here to talk about the same. Dog bite is trivial but not unsourced. Please reinstate. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: I haven't removed anything dog-bite related. Please read the diffs carefully. Vanamonde (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

1973 Chilean coup

We had a dispute over it three years ago? I don't remember and I can't find anything on the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It might have been on Augusto Pinochet, related to the 1973 coup. Does it matter particularly? Vanamonde (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketers

Hi. I saw that you also added the prose in List of Presidents of the Bharatiya Janata Party for first three candidates. As a suggestion, you can also add to the description for the candidate if anything important happened to BJP party during someone's presidency like BJP forming government.

And I also recently nominated List of Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketers for FL rating. Please feel free to leave comments here. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sagavaj: Yes, I'll consider that. I don't usually do either sport or FLC-related stuff, so I don't know if I have the expertise for that list, but let's see; maybe I'll have the time. Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Newberry Volcano

Hi Vanamonde93, thanks for the tags for Newberry Volcano. In the future if you notice such inconsistencies, could you make a note on the talk page or send a message to the primary editors of the page? Sorry, I didn't see your tags until just now. ceranthor 14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor I did in fact mean to leave a message, but I was reviewing a large number of articles in a short span of time, and I missed it. Thanks for addressing the issues. Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quds Day

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quds Day. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Curious

How exactly are these wonderful news-pieces generated? I've found countless such cases in TOI's reporting but am at dark as to the method behind it.....Some sort of automated-program (even they ought be better)?∯WBG^converse 06:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Holy crap batman...Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:) Another one.....∯WBG^converse 12:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixing sfn templates

Hi Vanamonde-- thanks so much for the help with the Mississippi special election I was working on. Wanted to flag you on an older article I'd created with, Sarstoon Temash Institute for Indigenous Management. I'm getting a bunch of Harv errors there too, but I'm having trouble fixing the issue even though I'm now aware of it. Do you have any suggestions or tips for fixing them moving forward? Thanks! Nomader (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nomader Should be all done. For future reference; in the bibliography section, a source formatted as {{citation|... is automatically considered a harv reference, but {{cite book|... requires a |ref=harv somewhere inside. Also, for the footnotes, you either have to use every author, or use |ref={{harvid|FIRST AUTHOR|YEAR}}| inside the template (and then you can use only the first author's name in the footnotes). Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it-- super helpful, thanks! Nomader (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

AE

I'm going to reply here to your comments at AE so as not to make my report longer. Honestly, given the scope of the problem I don't see how I can make it any more concise. If you got any suggestions, I'd welcome them. As to your points, Icewhiz acknowledgement of his "error" was to call misrepresenting a source to attack a subject "a mild case of OR". This shows that he doesn't take these kinds of issues seriously. As to the source, this is a far-right anti-semitic source, which is itself misrepresenting Chodakiewicz for its own ends. So then the question becomes, why is Icewhiz using a far-right anti-semitic, clearly unreliable source in a BLP, especially since he claims to object to such sources?

For the Musial diff, I guess that's a matter of interpretation, but Icewhiz's edit makes the statement more extreme than it was.

However, please take a look at the Krajewski issue. There's a reason why I put that up first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If Icewhiz is using a far-right source, then that's the point which should be made, right? Also, I'm quite willing to examine evidence that some editors are discounting sources based on personal dislike; but I'm generally not willing to treat those as BLP violations. I suspect the same is true of other admins. So what you've got to do is either provide clear-cut evidence of policy-violation, or a series of diffs which show there's a clear problematic pattern to an editor's talk page commentary even when any individual comment is okay. At the moment, to be frank, I'm seeing things that are concerning on both sides, but not enough for a sanction. Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

" then that's the point which should be made" - He used both. Chodakiewicz's original essay and the far right source. I was trying to be... concise.

His edits regarding Krajewski and Chodakiewicz are, in my mind, clear cut policy violations (BLP). Taken together with his edits on other historians' articles, there is also a clear problematic pattern (that's sort of the thing - it's hard to establish a "pattern" when you have to be concise).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, I specifically focused on only the BLP issues so as to avoid making the report too long. But there's plenty of other problematic behavior. Like, for example, Icewhiz's bizarre contention that because one source said that "no perpetrators of a massacre are known to be alive", then that is a BLP violation against somebody somewhere who might still be alive who was involved in the massacre, except if such people exist, then they certainly weren't involved in the massacre because that would be an attack against them! Or something like that. It's confusing. Purposefully so, because it was just a dishonest attempt at removing a source he doesn't like. See discussion here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Chodakiewicz was previously discussed a month ago a AE (VM brought it up) - my intention had been to present a WP:ABOUTSELF article that was published in several articles. As for Koniuchy massacre - VM has been advocating inserting rather biased sources, as well as several PRIMARY sources (by an investigating agency (IPN) - using press releases by the IPN for stmts in Wiki voice - and approx. 3 people who were involved in the parallel Lithuanian investigation (which unlike the Polish (largely ignored), was covered by outside sources and was highly criticized) are alive), while removing English language academic sources. See - diff.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan relations

Thank you for your caution. Yes that is what I intended to restore. The user who turned up there has been tracking my edits and been filing a dubious report against me. He removed the note I added asking for sources, he then removed it giving another dubious reason. Obviously he does not want it there. Can you review the edit and add it there? I have not violated the topic ban and have not edited any India-Pakistan conflict pages.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@NadirAli: That's not my area of expertise, so sorry, but I'm not going to get involved. What I'm trying to tell you is that even editing content on linguistics on that page is likely to land you in hot water. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I explain it to you? You'll see my reasoning behind it. Problem is alot of people are not familiar with the term Hindustani, so adding that note will help the intro avoid possible future edit wars from others, not myself. That is why i'm avoiding the page and asking somebody to look into it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks, NadirAli. I really don't want to get involved, as I have enough on my plate at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

HiatusStatus

Hi! I've just reverted several of this user's contributions because they added blatantly fake information to articles, and in some cases, deleted correct information to add their bogus content. I glanced at their talk page and block log, and noticed you were the last to block them (they've already been blocked three times) with the explanation "Persistent addition of unsourced content. The previous block was for two weeks; the next is likely to be indefinite, unless the editor amends their ways." I would highly recommend indefing them at this point, as glancing through most of their previous contributions shows not a single helpful/truthful edit. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@KatnissEverdeen: Apologies for the delay, but I've taken care of it now. Vanamonde (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sharif

You left his photo on ITN. Stephen 11:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen: Dammit. So I did. Fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of the article Brij Raj Oberoi

Hello Vanamonde93, I want to know the reason why the page 'Brij Raj Oberoi' was marked for speedy deletion. As per the criteria mention A7 and G11. The indication of importance was mentioned as the person is a hotelier and has been mentioned in other Wikipedia article. And the article was properly cited from reliable resources of newspapers like Fortune, The Hindu etc. And it was not a promotional article as many newspapers have talked about him. Could you please tell me in detail why the article was tagged for Speedy deletion? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie 09 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie 09: I'm afraid that simply being a hotelier is not really a claim of significance; there are hundreds of thousands of hotels worldwide. That was the main reason. The second reason was that some of the language was promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Finally, please remember that to pass our general standard for notability, there must be substantial information about the subject of the article in independent reliable sources; brief mentions are not enough. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I understand their are hundreds of hoteliers worldwide but in India it is of relevance as the person has a chain of Heritage hotel in Himalayas which is an important information. As a relevant information cited with independent resources like Fortune article, where Fortune has also given the importance to the person in an standalone article. There are many articles written and mentions by different important newspapers about the person. If the language was promotional in nature I am apologetic for that as I am new to Wikipedia but I have kept the language based on only facts stated in newspapers. As taking example of other Wikipedia pages and their citation I wrote this one, where pages were not even cited to proper resources and are still published. I feel my article was not really infringing any major Wikipedia guideline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie 09 (talk • contribs)

@Vanamonde93: Well, I'm afraid the problems with notability remain, and I'm not willing to simply undo the deletion and leave it at that. However, I would be willing to move the deleted page into your userspace as a draft, where you can work on it at your leisure, and ensure that it meets our policies and guidelines before creating it again. Is this something you are interested in? Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

--Alfie 09 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)::@Alfie 09: Sure! As you mentioned the article had promotional language I am willing to work on it again and make sure it meets the guidelines. However, I would need your help in understanding what part you feel as promotional as I don't see anything which is promotional in the article. There is a ambiguity in understanding the guideline in what is written and what is followed, as this article Twaron is just cited from the person website and other links doesn't even exist now. So I would really need a help into understanding this.

@Alfie 09: here you go: User:Alfie 09/Brij Raj Oberoi. Please read WP:RS and WP:NOTPROMO before proceeding. Also, please remember to sign your posts. Since you asked about Twaron; that page isn't in great shape, but it does have references to multiple scientific or semi-scientific journals. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest using the articles for creation process to move your article out of draft space. Vanamonde (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you! I read the guidelines for Non promotional articles and I did read it before as well. I don't see the article having any kind of promotional words or indicating towards anything promotional. The article is simply based on facts about the person with reliable resource which is not even a Press Release, like the Fortune article. I need to understand where it is not according to the guideline?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie 09 (talk • contribs) Alfie 09 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie 09:, please, sign your posts on talk pages. Adding a sobriquet like "Diamond Oberoi" verges on promotion, but the issues aren't just with language. Listing the hotels owned by a person, for instance, is also problematic. Vanamonde (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In this case adding a sobriquet is a matter of factual information, where the person is known by the name 'Diamond Oberoi' and this is also mentioned in other Wikipedia pages related and has been accepted and also has a mention in the newspaper. The two names the person is known with, is described in all the news article I have given the citation of. And there are many Wikipedia article of people in which their sobriquet is given. So please help me understand how it is promotional? Also, are you saying that the hotels owned should not be mentioned at all? Because this is what he is known for. The hotels are Heritage properties which were once owned by the Royalties of the particular place and has history of hundreds of years behind it. It is something like Steve Jobs Wikipedia page talks about that he was the co-founder of Apple because it is a fact. Similarly the hotels were mentioned because of the relevance with who the person is, without it the article will not make much sense because he is known as a person who has a Heritage group hotels in Himalayas. So is it like the mention of hotel cannot be there at all? Alfie 09 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I would advice you to bring 3 reliable sources (no blogs or websites of questionable editorial integrity or interviews) that cover(s) the subject in a non-trivial manner i.e. not any piece with mere-name-mention(s).(The Hindu news-piece fails to establish much of any notability on this ground.)For one the TWL is too new to be even considered a RS, esp. in an era when every other journalist is opening up their own news-zines.As discussed at RSN, Fortune-India is typical PR-stuff.So, nearly nothing to establish notability, as of now.∯WBG^converse 14:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alfie 09: Please don't misrepresent what I say. Listing the hotels owned by a person is promotional. I didn't say you couldn't mention them. And honestly I've had more or less enough of this discussion; WP:AFC is the place you should go for more feedback on your draft. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:I understood your point on listing. I just wanted to be clear to omit any kind of confusion further. Also, as WBG mentioned the resources are not reliable. Please tell me how Fortune India which is a part of Fortune worldwide can be a typical PR publication? I want to understand as I have seen many Wikipedia article cited with Fortune articles and supported as reliable source. I read the guidelines that you have mentioned but please understand that they are very generic in nature and doesn't speak about which publication article is reliable and which is not. By now I have understood the point that listing the hotel names is something I would need to correct but is that the only thing? If you look at the article it is written in the words given in the newspapers and not something I have wrote on my own.Alfie 09 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Alfie 09: I asked you look for feedback elsewhere, and you ignored my request, which is rather annoying. I did have another look, and here are some more concerns; this source reads more like a puff-piece than genuine journalism. The Fortune piece does, too, but that is from a known source and I can't dispute it beyond a point. But, it says nothing about an undergrad degree, certainly not one with honors. The phrase "heritage hotels" is another problem, without further context. Now, please rewrite your draft, and take it to AFC. I don't have more time to spend on it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You have been very helpful and patient to answer my queries. I am really thankful to you as it helped me alot.Alfie 09 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alt-right

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)