User talk:Voorts/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Voorts!

Happy New Year!

Voorts,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Abishe. Happy New Year to you too! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your close

For the record I too believe that your close was incorrect. I would refrain from closing discussions on wiki until other editors are confident that you can do so competently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Horse. I understand that you disagree with my close, and at this point I'm not going to continue relitigating whether my close was proper or not. I will note that I find it extremely unfortunate that editors who were involved in the original discussion can bludgeon their way to re-opening a discussion without following the close review process.

I will also continue closing discussions. I have closed several discussions (e.g., LLM PAG proposal, close review page proposal, Al-Shifa hospital lede) and there have only been three occasions where other editors have asked me to review my closes and reopen discussion: one time I did so, in this case I did not, and in another case I fleshed out my close rationale and the editor requesting it be re-opened was satisfied.

Thanks, and happy New Year, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Three is a lot in that time frame. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The first one I reopened because it was clear that there wasn't sufficient notice after that was pointed out to me (and I'll admit I made the mistake of assuming that WP:YEARS was the proper forum for that discussion, a mistake I will not make again); as I said before, I'm not relitigating this close (but I have now requested a peer review at WT:CR, since we didn't go through the proper process for close reviews); and the third case I fleshed out my close rationale (something I admittedly should have done in the first instance), and that's now moved on to a follow-up RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad idea

this is a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus fair enough voorts (talk/contributions) 15:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

RD5

I think you'd need a wider consensus for deletion before RD5 would apply. I don't disagree with your reasoning but I suspect there are others who would disagree. WP:RFD might be the place to take it to. Nthep (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox?

Howdy. Check the 'recent' editing history at Monarchy of Canada, these last few days. The RFC isn't about the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deb (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Tag

Hello Voorts, review the tags for Badre Alam Merathi. Thank you.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Owais, here are two examples. Phrases like "he continued his educational journey" and "He scrutinized the intricacies of the Quran and hadith" are vague and could use clarification. Describe what he did: how did he continue his educational journey, how did he scrutinize the Quran and hadith? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer Barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your extremely quick and helpful GA review of Let's All Go to the Lobby, which passed within 25 hours of its nomination. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with the WikiCup! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Great work on the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., introduced: "In 1948, Twentieth Century-Fox released The Iron Curtain, a spy thriller based on the story of Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko. The Soviet Union was, predictably, unhappy with the film, and sought its suppression. In "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" (Tomoff 2011, p. 135), the Soviets sued in the New York Supreme Court (New York's trial court). The suit was based on the film's use of the music of several Soviet composers, including the eponymous plaintiff Dmitry Shostakovich. The filmmakers used the works, which were in the public domain in the United States, without the composers' permission and they credited the composers in the opening credits. In court, the composers argued a novel theory in United States law: that their "moral rights" in authorship had been harmed because Fox had associated their art with a political message with which they disagreed. The court ruled in favor of Fox, holding that although moral rights exist, the court lacked a standard to adjudicate the claim and that the strong public policy favoring free use of the public domain outweighed authors' rights to control use of their works. The case has received limited discussion in the legal scholarship, with some commentators agreeing with the court, and others finding its decision lacking."!

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible split

Hi Voorts, congrats on Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. being on the front page! Since you are part of WP:LAW I wondered if I could ask you a question which has been bugging me for ages .. Squatting in England and Wales is quite a long article which is basically two pages in one. There is a chronological history of squatting, under sections 1, 3 and 4, which is currently broken up by section 2 "Legality". This section 2 is a summary of the relevant laws which pertain to squatting, and for my feeling would be better spun off as another article. Then you would have the current Squatting in England and Wales as the history and another page as the legal discussion. I'm not sure what to call the second page and I also wonder if it makes sense to split. What would the new second page be called? It could be Legal history of squatting in England and Wales or Squatting and the law in England and Wales. They are both quite wordy options. I haven't found a useful precedent case and want to do it properly since other Squatting in X pages eg Squatting in the United States and Squatting in the Netherlands could then be broken up in a similar fashion (although the latter already has the spinoff page Dutch squatting ban). Thanks for any thoughts on this and best wishes for 2024! Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a split. The page isn't so long that a fork is needed, and I think much of the law stuff can be folded into the history, since legal changes are often tied to other kinds of sociopolitical changes. It might be worth bringing this to the WP:LAW talk page to see if anyone wants to help with working on this or has a different view than me. Happy New Year to you as well! voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's true the page as a whole isn't too long. Cheers for the opinion, I thought I'd come here first before WP:LAW because the last few times I asked questions at wikiprojects I didn't get much of a response. Mujinga (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it unfortunately seems that a lot of WikiProjects (with a few exceptions) are pretty inactive these days. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

MRDA

As you rightly said, the article does need a bit of work (on my part, in the background sections) before it goes to GAN. Before the GAN, though, do you want to put it up at PR? I know when you proposed the idea on my talkpage you pencilled in FAC as a maybe, but I think that once it's done it could be a very strong candidate for the bronze star. If we went through PR first then after GAN we could barrel through immediately to FAC rather than waiting the 8-ish weeks that a PR usually takes. If we do get it to FA though, I thought it could run as TFA on 18 December: the 10th anniversary of Rice-Davies' (sadly quite young) death. However, this is all assuming you do want to take it all the way and I'm not blabbing on about hypotheticals. I think it would be a good idea—but then I would say that, wouldn't I? ;) Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to take it to GAN and FAC as well. I think the order should be GAN, then PR if we feel it's needed, then FA. I like the idea of a 12/18 TFA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. S'ppose that works too. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sock

Hi voorts. I hope this finds you well. Here you suggest that Finneggington3451 is a sock, specifically of Theradioeditor. But the SPI doesn't mention them, and that page was last active over two years ago. Can you elaborate, please? Cheers! ——Serial 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 Hi Serial, I opened an SPI here per QUACK. CU came back as possible sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikIProject China

Hello, Voorts,

You posted a notice about a page move but I believe misspelled the page title and created this orphaned talk page. Maybe you could repost this notice on the correct talk page and then tag this page for deletion. I hope this explanation makes sense to you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Liz. That was a typo using the notifier tool. Page marked for deletion. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 06:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)