Jump to content

User talk:Amakuru: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Happy New Year, Amakuru!: thanks for the word "tangential"
Line 1,107: Line 1,107:
:::: Yes ;) - I saw her in the opera, and was really more interested in the opera than the singer. The hook now says where something happens but not which piece. I said on ERRORS that I believe that the opera - the composer's favourite but rarely performed - would be more intriguing than a German opera company (again), but wasn't heard (which is an understatement). - The hook says nothing about the singer, but those running DYK these days want hookiness and performance. I'm out of DYK, life is too short. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:::: Yes ;) - I saw her in the opera, and was really more interested in the opera than the singer. The hook now says where something happens but not which piece. I said on ERRORS that I believe that the opera - the composer's favourite but rarely performed - would be more intriguing than a German opera company (again), but wasn't heard (which is an understatement). - The hook says nothing about the singer, but those running DYK these days want hookiness and performance. I'm out of DYK, life is too short. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Oh right, yes I see what you mean. There was a discussion about that sort of thing on the DYK talk page a couple of days ago, my opinion has always been that DYK exists primarily to reward the editor who works on an article. Of course, the readers must be given accurate well-cited information, and we make it as informative as we can, but if it were really solely a reader-focused column then wouldn't we do away with the "new articles" bit altogether and just run the most interesting stuff. It is also certainly not a competition, and page views only matter if you're interested in such things. Anyway, there we go. I had my hook overruled once as well, at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Rwandan Civil War]], I just wanted to give what I thought was the most significant outcome from the subject, but in the end we went for something more tangential because it was hooky. Wishing you a good weekend ahead.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Oh right, yes I see what you mean. There was a discussion about that sort of thing on the DYK talk page a couple of days ago, my opinion has always been that DYK exists primarily to reward the editor who works on an article. Of course, the readers must be given accurate well-cited information, and we make it as informative as we can, but if it were really solely a reader-focused column then wouldn't we do away with the "new articles" bit altogether and just run the most interesting stuff. It is also certainly not a competition, and page views only matter if you're interested in such things. Anyway, there we go. I had my hook overruled once as well, at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Rwandan Civil War]], I just wanted to give what I thought was the most significant outcome from the subject, but in the end we went for something more tangential because it was hooky. Wishing you a good weekend ahead.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Did you see my latest pics, - of three days ago? - Thanks for the word "tangential" - yes, that's what I can't live with: A great singer (Pisarenko), and we say that she studied Norwegian, and another (Manistina), and we say that someone else mimed when she stepped in. That's the most normal thing happening when someone steps in so short notice that the acting can't be taught to her. Manistina acted - and well, and she is the villain - in the third performance that I saw. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 23:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


== [[UEFA Euro 2020 Final]] scheduled for TFA ==
== [[UEFA Euro 2020 Final]] scheduled for TFA ==

Revision as of 23:12, 27 January 2023

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

Free

Hello, I found no free images for the Mazda Suitcase Car It is a 1991 prototype. The only one thought to exist is not on public display from what I have learned. So not sure where I could get another image, I used that one from the manufacturer of the vehicle. I shared it with the writer of the article. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is correct - I was going to give up on it - but it is always better with an image. Bruxton (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst and Bruxton: if that's really the case and you're confident that it meets WP:NFCC, then apologies and go ahead and re-upload it. I must say I find the fair-use criteria a little haphazardly applied, particularly when it comes to the "replaceability" criterion. I mean it might be possible that the images out there (see [1]) could be released under CC licence if you wrote to the copyright holders... but is doing that a requirement before declaring fair use? It could be something to check at the fair use noticeboard, but I'm not that fussed if you're not.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks

I saw that you pulled the Lorenz hook today, I am struggling with the Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Lorenz (artist) nomination and hook. I have asked for help at the talk page. After being pulled twice it is probably best to see who can help. Bruxton (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: it looks like it was all sorted satisfactorily in the end. Apologies for not returning to this sooner.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Test. Amakuru-Confirmed (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Peck (RAF officer)

Amakuru, will you be returning to this review (you originally pulled the hook from prep or queue) to make sure the issues you had with it have been dealt with, or should I find someone else to review it? Many thanks for all you do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July vacation

July songs

I'm doing many things besides Wikipedia and have pics from vacation days to offer Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: many thanks for sharing, I really enjoyed seeing your pictures from your vacation. Looks like some incredibly beautiful scenery! I was also away recently, in the most "mountainous" area of England - the Lake District, where we climbed the third-highest mountain Helvellyn, which is 950 metres (3,120 ft) in altitude. I think you have much higher peaks in Germany, and even Scotland, Wales and Ireland have higher, but it's still a beautiful area and some interesting hiking all the same. Here are a few pics:
     
Red Tarn from the summit of Helvellyn Striding Edge with Ullswater in the distance Swirral Edge and Red Tarn
Thirlmere and Raven Crag Furness line at Grange-over-Sands Allithwaite
All the best!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, beautiful, especially the first with the play of sunlight and clouds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: we were very lucky with that actually. Earlier in the day there had been heavy fog at the top, and we met people on their way down who had seen no view at all. By midday it was quite spectacular though.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine. The mountain seen from where I live, Großer Feldberg (in the distance), is about the same height, and in clouds rather often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for UEFA Women's Euro 2022 Final

On 1 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article UEFA Women's Euro 2022 Final, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for all the behind-the-scenes work you do for DYK, and for your improvements to the Stanley Stair hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: oh, many thanks, that's most kind of you! I'm glad I can help in useful ways to improve the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Akeelah Award

I would like to present you with the Akeelah Award for the most creative spelling of "errors". Congratulations!  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  22:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax: maybe my new spelling will catch on! Thank you for the award...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like it! Here's my favorite spelling-related clip. (Background info: Nick was wooing Diane. After she rejects him, Loretta enters, and Nick turns his attention to her.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  03:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

August songs

pics and thoughts on 13 August -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and on 15 August: "my" concert of the year (so far) is on the Main page, but not pictured, and I don't understand why --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the last week brought more outstanding concerts and bike tours, - how is your summer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ another tour on Debussy's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ the church where I heard VOCES8 and more discoveries --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beavers plural

This was already discussed at WP:Errors, and changed to beaver, as that is the more accepted plural of beaver. Please revert, thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: the article says "beavers". Also, your assertion that it's the "more accepted" plural doesn't seem to be borne out by evidence, e.g. recent ngrams, the first-listed plural form at Merriam Webster, National Geographic or other sources. Given this, I'll leave it as it is now, per the originally posted version. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that beaver is the older, more common plural. English has many irregular plurals, fish/fish, aircraft/aircraft, sheep/sheep. And beaver/beaver. Yes, dictionaries report that people use fishes and aircrafts, but that doesn't make it right. Abductive (reasoning) 09:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: no offence to you, but the ngram and dictionary evidence seems a lot more conclusive to me than your "assurance" on this matter. The ngram I've linked above shows use of "beavers" for the plural all the way back to 1800, and probably earlier. And in any case, language evolves and Wikipedia is written in modern usage, so the very clear and growing lead for "beavers" since around 1985 means that should be our usage per WP:COMMONNAME. Finally, as noted by Schwede66 at ERRORS, the beaver featured article uses "beavers" when referring to the animal itself, not just when referring to the fact that there are two species - e.g. "Beavers can hold their breath for as long as 15 minutes" etc. There is no reason why "event involving ... beavers" should be any different from that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning. Usage is important. But as I said at WP:Errors, beaver is correct for everyone, but beavers is incorrect for some people. Abductive (reasoning) 10:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, since the only other affected wildlife is birds, maybe the item could be shortened to "fish and other wildlife"? Abductive (reasoning) 10:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: well, that might be a solution, although I remain unconvinced we have an actual problem here that needs fixing. Personally I'm the opposite of what you're saying, "beaver" just looked incorrect to me, I've never heard of it before although obviously I see now that it is a legitimate less-used plural...... similarly, anyone who thinks beavers is "incorrect" doesn't seem to have usage in sources on their side. In any case, before making a change to remove beaver altogether, is it the case that birds were as affected as the beaver(s)? The Washington post article mentions "hauling dead fish and beavers out of the water", without mentioning birds, suggesting those are the important animals for the story.....  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This news article mentions birds, and not beaver. It is interesting, because if the fish were dying due to heat and lack of oxygen, that shouldn't affect the birds that feed on them. Abductive (reasoning) 11:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Campbell Danesh

Hello.

The late singer Darius Campbell Danesh's surname is hyphenated. So shouldn't the article name be hyphenated as Darius Campbell-Danesh?

Yours sincerely, 31.200.19.49 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what makes you think it's hyphenated? Looking at sources that have come out since his death, they mostly seem to use the name unhyphenated: [2][3][4][5] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish castle

Hi Amakuru, following on from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll#Kj cheetham: August 11, 2022, would you mind taking a quick look at Sundrum Castle? Hopefully I can submit it to GA soon, though imagine it may be a while before it gets reviewed. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonica (disambiguation)

Hi, I'm considering creating a Harmonica (disambiguation) page, as there are a number of people known by that name/nickname, along with topics containing the word that a user may be looking for (e.g. Brenthia harmonica and Harmonica Incident). Starting to create the page yields a note: 

13 December 2016 Amakuru deleted page Harmonica (disambiguation) (G6: Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page).

I wanted to ask if you recall whether the deleted page was not appropriately populated (e.g. just a single entry), or there's a larger concern with having a Harmonica (disambiguation) page? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmoore5556: thanks for your message and for checking with me. The page at the time I deleted it was simply a redirect back to the main harmonica page, which served no real purpose, and someone had tagged it for speedy deletion. It sounds like you've identified some useful dab links to put on the page, so feel free to go ahead and recreate it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo Armstrong

Now, that was a helluva move conflict. Who will do the final honors? No such user (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@No such users: Ha, looks like you've reversed the move I did! If it's OK with you, to avoid confusion, I'll just do the move again and delete the redirect - this is usually a bit cleaner than the round robin... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, thank you. Cheers! No such user (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user:  Done, thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian denar

Hello, I'm wondering what evidence and clear consensus you saw that led you to determine "North Macedonian denar" was the common name? --Local hero talk 02:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Local hero: thanks for your message and query. As you know from the RM, Korpalo provided an extensive list of recent sources, dividing them up between those that preferred the prior title and those that preferred variants of "North Macedonian denar". The latter enjoyed a very clear lead, which was evidence in favour of the assertion that WP:NAMECHANGES was met. I note that you also provided a list of links, but the consensus in the discussion was that Korpalo's list represented a better sample of the most recent reliable sourcing. Of course, you didn't agree with this assessment, but overall the arguments appeared more persuasive to those who participated in the discussion and Korpalo's list looks legitimate to me as closer too, which means this represented the consensus view in the discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Korpalo's list of "Macedonian denar" sources was not complete, as it was obviously his intention to justify this move. I compiled the complete list of Macedonian denar sources at my sandbox. There can be no question that mine are of better quality. Of his 112 sources, nearly a third were from the Kosovo central bank. Further, the only support for the move came from single-purpose accounts (including the nominator). Myself and another longstanding editor formed the opposition. Thus, I see neither clear consensus nor convincing sources supporting the move. Thanks. --Local hero talk 17:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of reliable sources tries to provide a clear picture of both sides, and the trend of the numbers show that the "North" is included in the vast majority. Plain "Macedonian" in the list of Local hero is found in not up to date pages that call the country fyrom or Macedonia. This list in the sandbox does not meet the criteria of the RfC 2019. A case by case answer was given to Local hero for every link, but the answer was ignored to make the list longer, and all the invalid links are still reported in the list of Locah hero. Overall what matters is the trend of the numbers that include "North". So indeed there is clear evidence that the new name should be in line with the new name of the country. The table shown in a comment shows that "Macedonian" has zero benefit over "North Macedonian". That's another important evidence as nobody can dispute it based on wikipedia policies and facts. Thank you. Korpalo (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it tried, it certainly failed because you did not add even half of the sources that should've been added to the "Macedonian" side. All of my sources reflect the post-name change world and provide sound evidence that "Macedonian denar" remains the most used term. You and your fellow SPAs simply try to dismiss sources that are superior to yours by throwing out "spam" and "old" to describe mine. If anyone were to look at this for more than two minutes, they'd see your list would barely reach into the 70s without the central bank of a partially-recognized country. --Local hero talk 16:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for North Macedonian denar

An editor has asked for a Move review of North Macedonian denar. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --Local hero talk 03:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation

Hi,

Can you please keep the move to "Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation" from "Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation". I understand Wikipedia hasn't reached a decision to update to the official name of the city, that's "Bengaluru" but it would be wrong to keep old nanes of corporations, organisations and company. In Wikipedia terms it would still mean "Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation" still serves "Bangalore".

Thank you Loki Asgardian (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loki Asgardian: as long as we keep the city at Bangalore, it makes sense to keep other entities the same. Please don't make those moves again, you'll have to folow the instructions at WP:RM if you want to change it, as this is controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BMTC is a corporation. How does that make sense? It is change in the name of the brand; brand names have to be updated immediately following the change.  Check the official website, it is the "Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation". City name can stay wait for all the Wikipedia folks to accept it probably in another 50 years or so, but organisation and corporations are different. Loki Asgardian (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and apartheid

Hi @Amakuru: please could you address the concern raised by Nableezy[6] regarding your close of this RM? As I wrote here[7] I believe it was unjustified to overlook the 60% majority to move on the basis of "opposition on the grounds that the proposed title would risk making the article's scope less obvious", because only a minority of the scope of the article is about the analogy; most of the article is about the crime. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reopening the RM, would you mind also relisting it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move restriction

Something I'm wandering about for my appeal of my editing restrictions regarding directly moving pages is assuming my restriction on moving pages isn't removed completely (something I'm not going to push for) is to be able to move pages solely for the purpose of closing RM discussions per WP:RMCI. While I'm not technically prohibited from closing such discussions if I did close as move and then request technical assistance due to my ban on moving it would likely not look very good. This modification probably would be useful to the community as RM is often backlogged and its unlikely this modification would cause problems. Thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: I'll have a think about this and get back to you tomorrow hopefully! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: sorry for the delay replying, as usual lately I've been too busy and not been able to devote much serious time to WP... I can see where you're coming from with the above query, but to be honest I'm not sure it's something the community would really go for. Generally, closing RM discussions is seen as a more advanced "skill" than simply moving pages yourself if you deem the move uncontroversial. In the past, it was expected that an admin would close discussions, and while we obviously don't expect that any more, there is an expectation that the closer is a "trusted" user (often with the WP:Page mover bit) and someone who is well-versed in the lore of article title policy. Now I would hazard that you probably are at this point quite well-versed in that policy, albeit that you and I don't always seem to agree on whether there's a primary topic for a particular subject or not... But I think the community would expect that your page moving restrictions would be fully lifted *before* you started diving into the world of assessing RM closures, because it follows that if you're well-versed in the policy and fully trusted, then you would be able to make moves of your own volition too. I've just looked back through the records and it's a bit opaque to me why the page moving restrictions came in in the first place. It looks like you were banned in 2011 for socking, then that was lifted in 2017 with the current restrictions in place. Do you yourself understand whatever concerns the community had back then and think you've changed? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably not be closing many discussions like primary topic and geographical but I'm more talking about the other RMs that I don't participate in. I will talk about lifting my page move restrictions in the new year but yes if you don't think the exception on page moves for closing RMs is a good idea I'll mention that, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing COVID-19 pandemic

Hi Amakuru, hope you're doing well. Given the contentious debate on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic thread I was disappointed that it was closed with a non-neutral summary. Is it possible to have it re-closed by an admin, summarising the actual consensus? Polyamorph (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: (I hadn't seen the latest developments so just looked). I think and hope that there is now a line drawn under that discussion... the important decision was the admin who actually assessed the consensus and then removed the item from ITN. There was a small quibble afterwards, and then the discussion was closed by one of the vocal opposers, but really I don't think any admin would see a different consensus at this point. The close of the discussion, after a decision has been reached, is really something that can be done by anyone and the closing summary doesn't really matter much, it'll just be archived off and forgotten about. Reopening at this point would just be to extend the drama which should now be at an end. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries. Thanks for looking at it. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. my message to you came after seeing this, and so I just thought it would have been sensible to reiterate the consensus (which was blindingly obvious). But archiving is the sensible option. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September music

September songs

1 September: I remember the Vespro della Beata Vergine, 2 September: the last of the Rheingau Musik Festival concerts, and today we can read The Story of Mr Sommer, and follow Ruth Lapide. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today: Opera in Ukraine (not by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a rainbow pic today, and a deer yesterday (but hard to see) - Jubilate Deo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for once more for the lovely roses and for your usual interesting update. A while ago (on 21 August) you asked me how my summer was going... well it was generally a low-key summer for myself and the family. Other than the Lake District holiday I mentioned to you in July, we mainly just did a few day trips here and there. Here are a few highlights from visits to Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Whitstable and Canterbury...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     
Crowded beach at Bournemouth during
the August heat wave 		Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales
in Portsmouth harbour 		Beach and harbour at Whitstable
Cloisters at Canterbury Cathedral Kent countryside near the village of Cudham Skyline of London taken from Blythe Hill Fields
Thank you, lovely pics! My latest were just added, all from home. We'll sing tomorrow - see my talk, - I usually post programs after the event but now the DYK for one piece was already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added one more to today's line, of Großer Feldberg - we talked about it - in strange light, not a rainbow, just the colours, - how to describe that in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and yesterday I wrote Who shall separate us? and today we enjoy Spannungen (tensions, sparks ...) - chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
last images, - music to explore - the new Casals Forum for chamber music is just wonderful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK)

On 6 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK), 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. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Polish alliance

Given the existence of Franco-Polish Alliance (1524) a disambiguator probably is necessary. Also, when you move pages you need to take into account WP:NAVNOREDIRECT and check incoming links to the old title from templates. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

FYI. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: yeah, in fairness that change was made before I commented on the matter at ITN/C, and at that time there were 2 editors in favour and 1 against. So made in good faith. Hopefully the matter is at an end now anyway!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Journalism by committee. Ü – Sca (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouting" comment

Please don't do this — shouting in comments is rarely appropriate. Thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: this isn't a talk page comment, it's a note for other editors advising them that the clearly defined conditions for use of the {{Current}} template haven't been met yet. Such notes are frequently placed in wokitwdr in all caps so that they stand out and are visible. There is no need for the condescending attitude on your part, this is supposed to be a collaborative project even if we disagree on some points. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked a little closer, it's fairly clear I made a mistake — I apologise, Amakuru. I've self-reverted my removal — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WT:DYK: Can I Get It

Hi, the discussion has quite a few inputs now and I made some changes to how the hook fact is presented in the article. Kindly do guide me on how to resolve this further. Thank you--NØ 03:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Leka, Crown Prince of Albania" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Leka, Crown Prince of Albania and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Leka, Crown Prince of Albania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Ormus

Hi. You moved Kingdom of Ormus to Ormus and were reverted. As I mentioned in my edit summary undoing that, WP:RMUM tells us, "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." If you repeat the move yet again, you'll be edit warring. The onus is on you to obtain consensus for the move, which is indeed contested. Ormus, or Hormuz more properly, is an island in the Persian Gulf. The Kingdom of Ormus (Hormuz) was a political entity. The article title is perfectly proper. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: please check the history of that article before you start throwing accusations around. You're the one who has boldly moved it without discussion, twice now, when you know the move is Contested. The long term title until 9 September 2022 was always Ormus, so that's where it remains. Please move the page back immediately. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back - I had, indeed misunderstood. Apologies! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: thanks, and no problem. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improve a deleted musician article Juiceslf

Hello dear I want you to retrieve the deleted article,. For me to improve the article. Sett22 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Subscribing" to WP:ERRORS

Hi Steve, I'm back and feeling well ... it looks like you're still on the job at ERRORS (thanks for that). I've got a question. I see that it's possible to subscribe to sections with Level-2 headers now, even in WP-space, including WP:ERRORS. I also see that everyone's subscription to a section will be terminated if all the comments are removed ... or even if the only remaining comment is hidden, or if the only remaining signature is removed. I'm starting a short-term project of working more closely with User:Dying ... this will help me make some decisions about which edits to make to blurbs. Several of us would find it really helpful to be able to subscribe to the TFA section of WP:ERRORS ... but it looks like that's going to require pinning a "do-not-remove"-style comment, signed, right below "Errors in the summary of the featured article" and above "Today's FA". (Nothing awful would happen if someone does remove it ... we'd just re-add it and everyone who wants to would re-subscribe.) Have people talked about doing this kind of thing at ERRORS before? Do you know of any demand for this, or any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: welcome back, thanks for the message, and I'm glad you're feeling good. I've had a reasonable if quiet summer myself, not had enough wiki time as I'd like, but made the most of being with the kids and enjoying the weather. That's an interesting question re the do-not-remove line, I've not come across the new watching feature yet. Off-hand I can't imagine that anyone would object, since you have a good reason and it won't affect the rendered page. Maybe just add it and see what happens. Bear in mind there is a "clear all error reports" button at the top too, so you'll want to update that once you've made the change. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you had a relaxing summer. Okay, I think I see how to fix the "clear all error reports" button so that it will delete everything except the comment that I want to stay pinned. I'll go leave a message at WT:ERRORS about the proposed change ... thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Coventry ring road

Congratulations, Amakuru! The article you nominated, Coventry ring road, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I missed this. So you can buy me a pizza or maybe a *triple* cheeseburger for my tip-top review. Honestly, you owe me, wink wink.....! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: thank you for your kind message, and of course, you've gone above and beyond for this article, supplying a GA and an FA review to boot. Of course, pizza and cheeseburgers is the least I can do to repay you... and perhaps a race around the Coventry ring road, see who can do the most laps in an hour.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm late to the party. Just wanted to say I really enjoyed reviewing this and congratulations on all your hard work paying off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: thanks, it was a really interesting one to write as well. As someone who grew up in the area, I never really knew how much history there was with the development of the road and its vaguely "pioneering" status. It would have been quite something if they'd gone ahead and completed the entire "Y-shaped motorway box" planned for Coventry, with branches heading off down the west and eastern north–south corridors. Although not necessarily in a good way, concrete jungles aren't quite as fashionable as they used to be!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Plante

Sorry to trouble you Amakuru, but I'm being bogged down by a user who continues to remove whole sections of sourced content that I've added (and nit-picking me on MOS:DOUBLESPACE). I've tried WP:AIAV, but to no avail. The editor stalked another article that I recently took to ITN and has now resorted to personal attacks on my talk page [8][9][10]. I don't know what to do now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: thanks for the note. On the face of it, this looks like a simple content dispute, and although I do agree that the other party's edits seem to be made under an odd rationale - "article already has too much information", that's not a reason for me to take administrative action. There isn't evidence yet that Defcool1 is a disruption-only account and they seem to be in good faith. Both of you have broken the WP:3RR many times over this morning, which as an experienced user you'll know is a Brightline rule that's usually met with a block. So I could block Defcool1 for that, but then I'd certainly have to block you as well, as you both edit warred. The page has been protected now, so the thing to do is to engage on the talk page. Defcool1 has started a section there, and you should reply. I may be able to contribute too. So I really do understand your frustration, I've been on the receiving end of other editors I've thought were being disruptive before, but you have to settle it in the usual Wikipedia fashion I'm afraid - discussion and consensus building. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your sagely advice Amakuru! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVMT Bengaluru–Nagercoil Express

Hi

Terminal of this train changes on 2nd October 2022 from Bengaluru City railway station(Krantivira Sangolli Rayanna–Bengaluru railway station) to the new Sir M. Visvesvaraya Terminal, Bengaluru railway station. Please don't revert the title, it is incorrect. I have also added official press release of South Western Railway zone of Indian Railways. Please refer it.

Thank you Lokeshwaran Vela (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Elizabeth II

I've mentioned you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II#Cause_of_death. Mcljlm (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October music

October songs

Today is Erntedank in Germany, thanksgiving, and we celebrated our village's 650th anniversary, and had the dress rehearsal for Verdi's Requiem with an interesting band of marimba, piano, horn, bass, timpani and drum, - concert tomorrow, our national holiday. Seeing a pic I took on the Main page was also a nice harvest. And a new FA for you! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you calculate the statistics for the moved DYK? Fix the templates? (I still believe that it should not have been moved today.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I can amend the DYK links if you like, although as noted, the page view statistics will be split over the two pages. Maybe you're right about it being a bit messy, but I personally think it's better to have correct content linked from the main page rather than waiting... I don't think it's the first time DYK pages have been moved during their run.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if something was badly wrong, but simply a uc/lc thingy was no such problem, imho. No it's not the first time. I remember Marktkirche being moved to Marktkirche, Hanover during DYK, and I remember how furious I was. Of course it was a different (worse) story, because the former name was not a redirect but a dab page, causing confusion no end. No statistics could be determined, of course. - I have nothing to do with this DYK article besides collecting all hooks dealing with Germany however remotely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: yes, you're probably right, I was too hasty in retrospect, since it wasn't a major breaking error. Sorry about that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No big problem either way, - at least the former name points at the right article. - I'm amazed about the things I found already about the soprano who charmed/mesmerized us yesterday, Talia Or. Will add a pic, and hopefully reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK author of the moved article deserves credit and the article being listed in the statistics, as the hook had almost 6k visits under the first name, and more than 6k under the second that day. Do you feel responsible enough to do that? The bot, of course, didn't pick it up. - Last touristy pics under songs. - Excited that Ukrainian choir OREYA will visit our parish, giving a concert on 4 November. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I have no idea what you want me to do about the statistics, but feel free to make any amendments you like yourself. We know that we should be using the combined total in this case anyway. Thanks for the pics, and I hope your Sunday has been pleasant.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to do anything myself. How would I change the stats entry, written by a bot and thus only showing the result for the article name when archived. Posterity will not know about the move. And just to honour the user on the talk without changing the entry in the stats would be fake, no? - I first asked theleekycauldron who runs the stats bot, of course, but she said it's not possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's not possible because the change would be wiped away by the script the very next day. I certainly understand the tension; please allow me some time to get this sorted out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it still be wiped away if the next month? Thank you for thinking about a solution to allow human errors ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Waiting until next month would probably work for a little while, until I decide to update the page again due to a script change – for now, I will award a {{DYK views}} template to the relevant user, and the archives will remain incomplete until I update my code. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new day, another pictured DYK but not pictured by me this time: look at power work tensions (if you translate). - I don't think of JPL, I asked John if he could understand what others feel, which seems the key question in the matter, but there was no answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you for the latest DYK updates. And yes, it's another day, another chance at things afresh. I'm working very slowly on the main article for a football club where time permits, been on the backburner for two or three years. Something keep me busy anyway. Re JPL, I agree. I have sympathy for him, but at some point you have to own the reasons why people feel the way they do, and understand how to make it better. I'm glad that justice was served in this instance, because I don't think it's the way our community operates to punish people for asking questions... but equally, I do fear we'll be back in the same place for more genuine reasons down the line, and perhaps just delaying the inevitable. Wishing you a happy Thursday anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - today's DYK: two facts from the two concert of this years Rheingau Musik Festival I liked best, both a cappella singing. If you follow the songs, you see a circus, where I performed singing, and in the end the whole tent joined for Dona nobis pacem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
who shall separate us? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
spa wellness: last day of BWV 56, and two great musicians who died --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
today a woman in red, cellist Ella van Poucke, with a video in the article --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... followed by the new hall where she played - I always like to see my pics on the Main page, - then the mezzo of our Verdi concert, finally don't miss Hannah Pick-Goslar, - met a cat today, pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gerda. You met a cat today? I have been away for the past week on the coast in North Yorkshire. Very beautiful. Will try to get some pictures uploaded when I have a chance.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! - The cat is hiding under songs above the tree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Oh yes, I see it!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
leaving the month with reformation and a cat treat (same cat) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, there's a long discussion about Talia Or on WT:DYK, and a short one mentioning her name which needs attention, and an admin, because she is in a queue already. You'll find the thread looking for the name. I'm returning from rehearsal, and see that nothing moved there although I raised attention in the morning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: today is a feast day (All Saints'), we sang a mass at church, and tomorrow is the birthday of my first subject, to be celebrated with a concert on Saturday: I have no time for other things, probably until Sunday. Please don't feel ignored. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: That sounds great, I've also been known to be at mass on all saints day, although today was orchestra evening and we're nearing our concert. Happy birthday to Mr Waterhouse, and good luck with your concert and other busy times...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Port Elizabeth

Please see here. Thanks, nableezy - 00:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WCMemail 13:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: please see the talk page. I have simply removed an inaccuracy from the article. Please stop reverting and engage in discussion if you think I'm wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being right is not a justification for edit warring, and per WP:BRD it is down to you to get wp:consensus to make your change. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: both yourself and Wee Curry Monster have also edit warred on the same page, so don't call the kettle black please. WP:BRD is not a policy, WP:3RR is the policy and so far nobody has broken it, so let's keep this civil please.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? have you read wp:editwar? note making a revert is not an edit war, making 3 is the point when you are warned about it. And wp:consensus is a policy, brd just explains how part of it works..Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: instead of lecturing me about policy, how about explaining to me why I'm wrong about the "de jure" issue? I've asked you about four times now, and you still haven't given me a satisfactory response. There's no such thing as BRD in policy, the policy is that we discuss the issue on the talk page. And unless some reason to keep "de jure" is established, then it needs to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, until you get consensus you are right, it stays. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

Hi Amakuru: Just FYI, something appears to have gone awry with the update of prep 1 to queue 1. The prep was never blanked, so it's still showing as the next one to be promoted to queue, even though it's already there! MeegsC (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: oh yes apologies, that's my fault. I forgot to do the post-prep tidy up. It should be fixed now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You're a star! :) MeegsC (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unable

I can't reach HJ Mitchell, Bloom is double spacing sentences and doing other things that a large majority would view as questionable. I don't have anything against Wiki Bowl. As far as anyone can tell the motivation behind Bloom's actions are to continue to perform well at the Bowl. On top of that FA and GA is another topic. Improving articles isn't the matter here; it's rigging articles and such.Defcool1 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a large majority" – speak for yourself, unless you have actual numbers/proof to back up such an exaggerated claim. And define "rigging". —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have you ever thought why HJ Mitchell (or any other admin for that matter) would choose not to intervene, despite being clearly active? Making blatant personal attacks (like here and here) is truly off-putting to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for Tsardom of Russia

Hi, Seeing as you closed the move request for {{Russkaya Pravda]], would you mind taking a look at this one and, if possible, putting it out of its misery? It was opened at the same time, by the same user, in the same fashion (an unsourced complaint followed by demands for evidence from the users who do not agree to the move instead of the other way around). I have voiced my opinion on the issue so by all means evaluate for yourself whether my request is proper and founded, but I believe the discussion has ran its coure. Thanks in advance. Ostalgia (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as I say that somebody tried to forcemove the page and delete the disputed content. Oh well. I guess this might mean the RfM is either de facto dead or about to get new visitors, either way my request might well be moot. Ostalgia (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thankyou for your very well stated views. I am really trying to not say more on the discussion. What people are saying is in many cases not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.
You made five edits to AN within an hour and a half of saying you were 'really trying to not say more', including posting then deleting one that responded to me saying STOP TALKING.
John, I sincerely wish you well. But I sincerely believe you would be better to start over somewhere else. Use the knowledge you've gained from these experiences to go make Simple Wikipedia better. Maybe come back in a year with a really good record there. Seriously, it's a good idea. Even if you get through this AN, you aren't starting back at neutral. Dozens of people will be watching. If you instead go to Simple, you might be able to make a relatively fresh start. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I meant what I said at AN/I - as a principle, the optics of site-banning someone as a result of their seeking good faith amendments to their restrictions are very poor indeed. But equally, what Valereee says here is also very much on point. Whatever you or I or Valereee or Gerda may think, there is a large body of editors on Wikipedia that have lost patience with you, and that's going to be very difficult to work through going forward. Even if you survive the AN/I thread, those editors will be constantly waiting for you to make a mistake, breach your bans, or annoy the community in some other way. And given your past history, they're entitled to hold those concerns. Also, as Valereee says, restating the same points again at the AN/I isn't helping either, much as it's probably difficult for you to sit back and watch your fate unfolding.
So what do to going forward? I recall that we chatted a year or two ago about you concentrating your efforts solely on a very narrow topic area, something like biographies of people born in the 1920s or something, I thought that was a good idea at the time, but obviously since then you've deviated back towards broader areas, which have led to the ramping up of topic bans. Heading back to something like this which is much narrower in scope seems essential at this point, and Valereee's advice about going to work on uncontroversial edits on Simple Wikipedia sounds a good place for that. If you can rebuild a track record of making completely uncontroversial and constructive edits, then people may begin to look more favourably on you here down the line. I wish you all the best, and hoping you can think through these issues and we can get to a happier place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Amakuru,

I have quetsion to you. ould you please help me to ollaborate whih user(s) who rverted me here. There is no conflict now at all but from my experience I know that my efforts to add some information to the article (I would like to at least keep info about fat how many electors can !vote nowdays) could be wasted. Could you as volunteer eventually tell me what do you personally think about my edit or do my edit was gramatically correct, or what I should do if usrs will still revert me with ignorance of discussio or snarky comments/summaries when there is obvious content, like here? I do not edit often Wikipedia as I do not have much time for that but info about procedure in France football for me i too important to b not mentioned in that article regardless how beyond of tired can be discussion with people who disagree with me. I hop you could at least help me or my English as volunteer, or eventually watch this page if cnsensus could be hard tom reach. Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did and it find it to be unconvincing because it fails to address the issue in hand. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha

Nice close. Good job. :) However, the internal box around a part of the discussion is interfering with the closure box. Since you are the closer, I fugre you should fix that, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: I already have, hopefully! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: and thanks for your kind words, by the way. When I saw a "new messages" bar, my heart sank a little because I thought it might be someone instantly challenging the close... but hopefully that won't happen given the detailed explanation I gave! See User talk:Amakuru/Archive 21#Good close, which followed the same lines.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Sorry for the heart-thump! I know that feeling all too well... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's still awkwardly non-colorized. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait... my bad... I was looking at the diff and refreshing. *sigh* - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: ha, and I'm probably not helping you by raising challenges myself, re crown princes and princes! Let me just add a thanks for stepping up and getting stuck into RM though, we need experienced editors to be closing the discussions, and hopefully you're learning from some of the objections raised and doing better closes as a result... for example it doesn't seem like the community likes discounting the !votes of editors who haven't edited the page, so I imagine you might not do that in future . Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a learning process. And while some folks didn't like it, another group of folks thought that I was spot on, including some rather experienced closers! That move discussion was a mess even without the article being under an Arb edict. *shrugs* And yeah, since RM is where I messed up, I'm trying to keep an eye on some moves so I can see what others are doing. Most of the time when someone disagrees with me, or I them, any initial hard feelings I might have roll off pretty quickly. Most of the time. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick technical query - should the article now start with the formal name, or the biographical name? My impulse was: "Siddhartha Gautama, better known as The Buddha (also ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: it should ideally start with his formal name, similar to Bill Clinton (which starts "William Jefferson Clinton") or Slim Pickens, which starts "Louis Burton Lindley Jr.". I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know whether Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha is the correct formal name, so feel free to edit as appropriate. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your close does not consider WP:THE nor address the fact that primary redirect situations are common, so determining primary topic is not enough. Why not move Mahatma Gandhi to Gandhi or Barack Obama to Obama? The common name is Obama. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec: Both of those examples would move titles to just the surname on a plain biography. Buddha is a religious styling or title and it's a religious bio. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "religious bio". Jesus and Muhammad, not Christ and the Prophet. I am a little confused why you went from preferring Siddhartha Gautama to The Buddha. Srnec (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec: I have no real preference between Siddhartha Gautama (biographical name) and The Buddha (common name), but I prefer BOTH of them to 'Gautama Buddha' - a name neither prevalent in sources in the article or in general and not really stood up in any way by any policy. 'The Buddha' is an unusual term in that it is as much a nickname or an epithet as it is a title. Unlike terms like prophet, it does not predate the Buddha, because he is 'The' eponymous and founding buddha, and the title only springs out of emulation of him. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323: But if you think either Siddhartha Gautama or The Buddha is acceptable, it suggests that you don't actually support the latter on the same grounds as Mathglot. In other words, you don't think COMMONNAME mandates the current title. Or else you could not possibly support Siddhartha Gautama. The name Gautama Buddha is a perfect parallel to our title Mahatma Gandhi. Both contain a family name (Gautama, Gandhi) coupled to an honorific (Buddha, Mahatma). Srnec (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec: I absorbed the feedback from the first RM this year, which was consensus against 'Siddhartha Gautama' despite it being an authentic biographical name, and also major opposition to 'Buddha' (without the 'the') due to the ambiguity concerns. In the face of community consensus against the true biographical name of the figure, I trusted in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:THE. There is no contradiction. I reacted to the first discussion and community feedback and reformulated a modified discussion accordingly. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also explained why Mahatma Ghandi is a poor analogy in the discussion. Aside from the separating millennia, compare [11] and [12]. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't wish to clutter Amakuru's talk page further, so I will only note that I would prefer Siddhartha Gautama over The Buddha. Srnec (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I'd disagree with your closure choice, but I thank you for doing the heavy lifting. Feel some appreciation. While I'll certainly abide by your closure, I'll wager we're not through with this naming issue. BusterD (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly that there was no consensus to move the page because !vote count was split. Reliable sources don't mention him as "The Buddha", instead they mention him as "Gautama Buddha" and sometimes as "Siddhartha". "The Buddha" is ambiguous and leads to more confusions. --Yoonadue (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoonadue: Have you even read the full discussion, including the source analysis by Mathglot at the end? Because your claims suggest otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say Reliable sources don't mention him as "The Buddha", instead they mention him as "Gautama Buddha" I don't think that a single comment argued that point. At best there were arguments that "Gautama" was needed to distinguish which Buddha, but nobody made an argument that "The Buddha" wasn't used, or what "Gautama Buddha" is more common. Further, not a single person was able to show that "The Buddha" is ambiguous; at best they argued that "Buddha" was ambiguous but couldn't provide a single example of another Buddha being called "The Buddha". That you can think of additional rationales against the move is not indicative of a lack of consensus, and when you call it a !vote ("not vote") and then argue that a numeric reading shows a lack of consensus, that's a sign that you are in fact treating it as a vote rather than a !vote, and ignores the fact that consensus that is viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Not only did you fail to discuss this with the closer before opening the MRV, but your comments take issue with the fact that you disagree with the result, rather than an issue with the close itself. You're bringing up new points that were never raised in the RM and using that as an example of a lack of consensus during the RM itself, which is a very clear sign that there was no lack of consensus in the RM. This is a close that never should have gone to MRV, at least not without a good rationale for why the close itself was problematic. - Aoidh (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of D. Trump

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on D. Trump requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 19#Tswift. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

I see you frequently comment at POTD on mainpage errors. I have noticed a trend in the past 3 POTDs that the text in the POTD caption is uncited, either in part or in large. Is making sure the POTD caption is entirely cited in the article a requirement of the mainpage? Therapyisgood (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: I have also noticed in the past few weeks/months that several poorly referenced blurbs have appeared at POTD. Unfortunately I haven't really had the bandwidth to look into it more fully, but please do flag such issues at WP:ERRORS, and feel free to notify me as well. Unreferenced material should never appear on the main page, so if it means cutting down the text or swapping to another picture, then that's what we need to do. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November music

November songs

celebrating GW60 -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... which was great in music yesterday, after OREYA the night before!! I added five pics in various articles. - I finally found time to reply in the Talia Or nom and the related discussion on WT:DYK. Bach cantata to come later today (listening), - no end to great music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for moving Graham's piece forward, on my last day before vacation, but what query is there for the tenor with the musical name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: apologies, I was going to raise a query about the term "extreme tenor", which I found a little confusing initially, but then I decided that by linking tessitura the issue would be resolved and I wouldn't need to query it at WT:DYK. If you'd like me to swap them back to the original order I can do so, that's up to you. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep order as it is now, - I just was afraid we'd get another of the "interesting" discussions, confessing that I had nights I couldn't find sleep because I still thought about how I could explain. The phrase meant "extreme tenor role", meaning a role with extreme demands, and yes I think the link helps explain in which respect. (The interview cited in the article elaborates that Pavarotti sang that role once and decided "never again", but feel that would be too much weight to mention in the article. Our broad audience may have heard of Pavarotti ;) )--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: right, yes, and apologies for any stress caused by the "interesting discussions" you mention... obviously as you know, it's nothing personal towards yourself, and I don't pretend to always in the right, I just like to make sure our readers are getting the best experience they can be, even if that means asking the difficult questions sometimes! I hope you have a very enjoyable vacation. I still intend to post a few pics for you from my recent trip to Filey, Scarborough and the North York Moors when I get a chance, it is a very beautiful area.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not personal but still fail to see how a hook about a singer that mentions Jerusalem, Jewish-Christian collaboration, German-Isreal-Indian collaboration and one of the few really famous conductors seems "not interesting", but a proposal that she dominates some unspecified scenery might be. Fairness to the subject, a BLP, has been mentioned on WT:DYK, but it's another discussion with a lot of noise, and way too general for my taste. What about an approach that some part of the hook has to appeal to the socalled broad audience, but leaving room to mention something specific that they may not yet crave about knowing but may be pleased to learn also. It's call Did you now? which to my understanding normally should be a no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Music can now be found together: a Ukrainian chamber choir, my cellist and composer friend's 60th birthday music (with a world premiere and that overview about his career), and Bach's ultimate statement about life and death --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help with ERRORS. When the hook about the Ukrainian opera was approved, the fact was in the article, and then I lost track. The reference was questioned, and Amitchell125 added another, - so I thought. Only now - after a day offline - did I notice that he also removed the hook fact. I'll travel for a week but not as little connection as today, - I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vacation pics - there's are new hooks for Talia Or and perhaps you could say yes or no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more vacation pics, and we have an approved hook now, but less AGF I'm afraid. - Your children may want to find a squirrel and a turtle ;) on my last vacation day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving in the U.S. - Bach said it in music for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opera and Advent choral music on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for all of the above, and for your updates from your travels. It looks like you had a really amazing time in the US... I don't suppose you met any of our American Wikipedia colleagues while there did you? It's all quite busy here, I never have as much Wiki time as I'd like... our December concert is coming up and I've just learned that we're performing the Prayer for Ukraine that you mentioned to me back in February as an extra for the concert, with singers alongside the orchestra. That will be quite poignant.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, Prayer for Ukraine! The choir visiting here didn't sing it (too simple for their taste) but German friends made a CD of their singing named after it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Very nice, and I'll let you know how it goes! We don't generally record our concerts unfortunately so no actual footage...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Netherzone was sad to have missed me ( but there wasn't "empty time" as you will have noticed. I met Floq when he came to visit Europe, - some precious memories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, very nice, that must have been a great meetup, it's always great to see fellow editors in person. And I don't blame you for making the most of your vacation, it looks from the photos like you managed to fit a lot of great things in!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lions' Den

The close states "moving back to stable title of Lions' Den (group)". Please explain how you concluded that title was the stable title when the article was created on 11 October with title Lion's Den and I moved it on 22 October to Lions' Den. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion had me scratching my head a bit too. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the relevant diffs:

11 October Created Lion's Den (group).

22 October moved to Lions' Den without leaving a redirect and edit summary "Possessive plural and disambiguation not needed"

24 October moved to Lions' Den (group) with edit summary "Can easily be mixed up with Lion's Den"

26 October moved to Lions' Den.

As can be seen, the RM is about disambiguation which was not addressed in the close. Nor is there a "stable title" as claimed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the lack of response here (while the editor continues to edit), I will submit the close for review.Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: thanks for the note, and it appears I made an error so I have re-listed. Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I wasn't ignoring you I'm just away from home this weekend and quite busy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Lions' Den (group)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Lions' Den (group). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again

can you restore the talk page as well? Ebbedlila (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebbedlila:  Done apologies for the oversight.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I haven't upset you

@Amakuru: I'm sorry if anything I've done has upset you at all. I can't say I know for certain if my reading on this is accurate, but I've noticed you seem to be not-especially-enthusiastic about my contributions on this site. Just going off your unhappiness about the initial result of the 2011 military intervention in Libya title change request (which I started), or your response to the alt-article suggestion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Tigray War, which I happened to create (although I appreciate the feedback about it needing expansion and an analysis section, which is true, and I've taken that into account).

I hope I'm wrong about this, but if I have upset, I'm apologize. XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XTheBedrockX: thanks for your note and no, you certainly haven't upset me in any way... the comments I have made on the articles you mention above were simply my view on the discussions that we were having with respect to those pages, nothing to do with any individual editors such as yourself, who have worked on them. As you'll see, I've now looked again at the Ethiopia-Tigray agreement article, and I see you've done a lot more work on it so I was happy to post it. As for the Libya invasion, I didn't agree with the move request for the reasons I gave, but again that's nothing personal. Cheers, and happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that. And thank you so much XTheBedrockX (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

  • England Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
  • New York City Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
  • Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
  • Chicago PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
  • Toronto Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
  • Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
  • Toronto Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
  • SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
  • Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
  • Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

The next note says exactly who and where. Please be more careful, especially when something is on MP. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: thanks for your message, but I'm still not seeing any mention in the text of who said that phrase, hence why I asked "by whom". I don't have access to the source, so I can't be certain myself, hence why I tagged you in the edit and asked you to supply that information. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really - "Rowland, 268–269, 268 quoted". There's absolutely no need for it to be in text. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: That's just a citation, it doesn't explicitly identify the speaker of the quote. The page in question might say "The Queen of Sheba described the art as "almost unbelievably conservative"". This is covered by MOS:WEASEL which says that claims must be clearly attributed. Hiding it in a citation is not clearly attributing. Also, why are you edit warring out the tag? I don't want to argue with someone I consider a friend, but I feel like it would be easier just to say who made that claim.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think "quoted" means, if it doesn't identify the auther of the quote? If Rowland was quoting someone else, as sometimes happens, they would be given too, and it would be "quoted in", not just "quoted". This is the normal way of doing things, & has been for the 15 years I've been editing here. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Can you review my changes at Template:Did you know nominations/Carter Moore Braxton? Thanks. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) @Amakuru: 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cranksgiving

I noticed that you switched two preps around, but Cranksgiving is a special occasion hook for Thanksgiving on November 24. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard line

Why have you renamed the article without any discussion? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: - per WP:RM, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." I saw no reason why anyone would object, since the company isn't called "Cunard Line" and sources don't refer to them that way. Do you have an objection to that move? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know about WP:RM, done it myself only recently. However this is a major article covering the whole history of the company. In the past it was known as the Cunard Line and a change like this should, at least, have been notified for discussion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: as per the above quote from the RM page, it only needs to be listed for discussion if it's controversial. Why would it be controversial? You're free to object to the move, but I'd at least like to understand why. WP:COMMONNAME is clear that we should use the name that sources use, prioritising recent sources if the name has changed. And reliable sources clearly prefer the shorter "Cunard" over "Cunard Line": [13][14][15] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Lyndaships comments on the talk page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chanderpaul" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chanderpaul and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Chanderpaul until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 2nd look at move

Can you please reconsider your move at [16]? By focusing on frequency of usage and not the other four criteria (in particular, precision), this closure reads like a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: - thanks for your note. Generally, the common name is the most important and over-arching metric used to determined names according to article title policy. At WP:COMMONNAME, it says "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly". However, in the "antisemitic trope" RM you mention, it was clearly demonstrated with evidence that a common name does exist, and that it is "antisemitic trope". The community generally favours the common name even in cases where one or two of the specific criteria may not be met, and this isn't a supervote since, as I explained in the close, it is the reading of consensus through the lens of policy. I hope that makes some sense to you. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting the "common name" cart before the horse (and again, supervoting not evaluating consensus). We often select frequently-used titles because they meet the five criteria, not regardless of whether they do. A full reading of WP:UCRN (often identified by the misnomer WP:COMMONNAME) makes that clear, for example the sentence immediately preceding your quote. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I have explained why the page was moved as it was, and policy is clear on this matter. We "prefer the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", and that is how the policy is applied in the close. Whether you consider the term "antisemitic trope" to be precise or not is not really relevant if a majority of sources title it that way. Feel free to take it to move review if you like, but really this is clear cut, and I also don't appreciate your accusation of supervoting, for simply applying Wikipedia's policies.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your time and kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Antisemitic trope

An editor has asked for a Move review of Antisemitic trope. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December music

December songs
happy new year

Today, we sang Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme twice, and the postlude was based on the cantata! Remember Talia Or? I confess that I wrote the hook thinking that Yoninah would like it. Did you watch the nom, still open about 2 months after the concert she sang? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, we sing for a Marian feast, I learned that Yvonne Ciannella died, the soprano who impressed me in my first night at the opera, and as she died in March, sadly no Main page reverence is possible, - at least she had a good DYK, at a time when opera singers were considered interesting. I'm proud today that Christiane Hörbiger made it to that corner, and happy that we celebrate the birthday of Jean Sibelius again. - I heard an excellent concert yesterday, by Tenebrae, and a short excerpt of them singing "Deo gracias" is also linked from my talk. - Gabriel Dessauer uploaded a pic he took of us singing Verdi with Talia Or. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today was a day rich in music, with two new pictures, and also rich in WP:QAI contributions on the Main page: the TFA, 2 DYK and 2 RD with members as principal editors. The church pictured there (not by me, nice snow dust and tall evergreen) comes with memories, detailed on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest pics, with an opera discovery and some snow. Today my talk has a DYK that was planned for 22 November, among the recent deaths the author of Duck, Death and the Tulip, and now a choir pic of "our" concert last Sunday, likely to become next year's lead image. Enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for 2014 FIFA World Cup Final, "about the 2014 edition of the FIFA World Cup, the most prestigious tournament in football, as well as one of the most-watched sporting events in the world. The 2014 tournament featured a few surprises, most notably Germany's 7–1 demolition of the hosts Brazil in the semi-final, which is covered in this article's "Route to the final" section. The final itself was between two old hands, Germany vs Argentina, with five wins between them and meeting in their third final."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks, always a pleasure to have a main page run, and nicely timed to coincide the 2014 final with the day of the 2022 final. Hope all well with you, I've been super busy lately and also suffering from winter colds a bit but will be glad of the Christmas Break.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. - Best wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: very nice, that sounds like a very special concert with Talia Or... I hope you had a great Christmas; I'm feeling somewhat better now, and it was a nice break with the family. All the best to you  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Our singing was great, see User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2023, musical program for the year (to be expanded), calender pics. - Seeing Talia Or on the Main page was great, after all the discussion back and forth (see beginning of this thread, and after I had said no matter what the hook, people will want to find out about that woman by the way she looks at you. - I'll strike for DYK if the present current towards sensation can't be stopped. See the discussion about a baritone and a soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: yes, well I broadly agree with you. I definitely think DYK should be about the editor such as yourself, who has put in work on improving the article and gets a small reward for that by seeing their work featured on the main page. That was surely the intention of the segment when it was launched, and the recent focus on counting page views and obsessing over whether a hook is hooky enough for readers is missing the point. If I were God of the Wiki, I'd make the "interesting" clause a nice-to-have, something to keep in mind when selecting hooks, but not a show-stopper if one can't be found. My only objection to the current status quo is that the community has held a big RFC and imposed the "interesting" requirement on us, but then the people on the ground don't follow that. While Talia Or and you certainly deserved the place on the main page per the above sentiment, the hook that ran also to my mind didn't satisfy the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement, or whatever the new wording is. It's just very frustrating for nominators, reviewers, promoters and admins if we don't know where we stand on this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: a very happy new year to you!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Amakuru. Thank you for your work on Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Bristol. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry ring road scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Coventry ring road article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 4, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: thanks for the note, and that looks like a good blurb. My only thought is that I had been thinking about holding this one off until 19 September 2024, which will be the 50th anniversary of the completion of the road. There were a few commemorations held on the 40th anniversary, so it might be nice to run it to coincide (and mention the full date in the blurb too I suppose). It seems a way off a the moment, but time seems to move more quickly in the Wiki-world so maybe it will come around soon enough... what do you think?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll find something else. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained

I moved User:Bilal-Momin to Draft:Nayan Mistry because the user requested a change of username and was clearly confused about the distinction between usernames and article titles. What prompted you to move it back? Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: thanks for the note. The reason I came across this user is because I was processing a move of the user talk page back from User talk:Nayan-Mistry to the correct user talk name of User talk:Bilal-Momin through a request at WP:RM/TR. As you say, the user was clearly confused, because they'd moved that talk page to a non-existent username. While doing that I noticed that the user's own page had been moved as well, taking what looked like the user working up an article in their own user space, into draft space. And there was no edit summary attached to the move at all, so I assumed that was also a mix-up of some sort similar to the user talk page also being moved. I didn't know that the user had requested a rename (and I don't even have access to that page you link above), but if that's the case isn't it better to discuss with that user and ascertain what they wanted to achieve, and indeed whether they want it moved to draft space, rather than confusingly moving their user page? Anyway, I'll leave it up to you what you want to do with it, but for future cases an edit summary would have be helpful so it's clear what was going on. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! It shows I rely too heavily on the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary setting, and fail miserably when it doesn't work on page moves.
While I think BM would have seen the redirect and in combination with the rejection message to his rename request. he should have understood, his subsequent move of his user talk page shows he clearly did not understand at all. I've taken two steps to steer him right, and I'm not going to be the bully stalking him around the wiki 'til he does the right thing. I'm done.
Thanks for the explanation, Cabayi (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ochman

While I'm clearly in favour of the move, it's good practice to wait 7 days for RM discussions. I don't believe this one was a case of WP:SNOW yet. Thanks! 162 etc. (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc.: it was reversing a prior undiscussed move, therefore it's regarded as uncontroversial/to-be-enacted per WP:RM. I've added this detail to the edit summary. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that, makes for a more solid close. 162 etc. (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous new Year. Best regards RV (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RV thanks for the message, and wishing you and yours a very happy festive season as well!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: many thanks, seasons greetings to you and yours.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: thank you very much, and a very happy Christmas to you and yours as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Claim"

Since you're citing MOS:CLAIM:

"To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence".

WP:NOR has an exception for routine calculations, "provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". Do you disagree that 2501 rats in 7 hours is an average of one rat every ten seconds, for seven hours, nonstop? Do you disagree that it is a meaningful reflection of the statement in the source?

Adult brown and black rats tend to be almost a pound each, let's go with 8 ounces each to be on the small side, that's still over 1200 pounds of dead rat. However, that is based entirely on an assumption on my part, and therefore absolutely does not belong in the article. DS (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: first of all, I hope you had a very good holiday season, if indeed you celebrate such things, and thanks for the note above. Regarding the ratting dog, I think 7&6=thirteen already pointed out to you, WP:Verifiability asks us to base our article text on what's in sources, not on what we personally feel to be the truth. For whatever reason you doubt what the source says, but absent other sources saying something different, it's simply not our place to question it. Personally I'm incredulous that a human can lift a 267 kg weight, but evidently it happens, so assuming that a dog can't kill constantly for seven hours could equally have happened. Finally, on the "average of one every 10 seconds" clause, it may be a routine calculation and technically it's certainly correct, but to me it's adding a subtle implication that the dog killed the rats at a constant rate, which isn't contained in the source. For all we know it may have killed them in shorter faster bursts with breaks in between. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had an absolutely terrible holiday thanks to dealing with people who lack the ability to critically assess sources and realize when they are garbage, thank you for asking.
"Shorter faster bursts with breaks in between" would be plausible if the numbers were lower by an order of magnitude. Think about what the statement implies. How are these thousands of rats being removed from the site of their deaths (between the dog's jaws) quickly enough that there isn't a pileup? Are you assuming some sort of assembly line with optimized rat-killing ergonomics?
When you have an apparently reliable source saying something which is flatly stupid, you don't just parrot it back as if it were gospel truth. DS (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2501 rats per:

And we have some specifics of the event in the following:

Most rat hunting is done with dogs, commonly with varieties of terriers that catch and kill the vermin. The human hunter’s job: flush the rats from cover. The rat hunting record for that method supposedly occurred in England in the 1820’s, when a rat terrier killed an incredible 2,501 rats in seven hours in a barn infested with the rodents. The dog was the renowned Billy, whose career was legendary. I haven’t found contemporary records of the 2,501 rat killing, but they may exist. Most of his records are for killing 100 rats in a rat pit against the clock. Billy’s best was 100 rats in 5 1/2 minutes. I haven’t seen any records for human hunters killing rats . . . [1]

As further context, we can watch or read the following:

1. rat catching with farm dogs about 250 rats part 1 rats fail

2. Rat Terrier “Exterminator dog” per the AKC.

3. Robertson, Elizabeth, D.V.M. (April 21, 2021) The Best Dog Breeds for Killing Rats [[National Canine Research Association of America]

4. Amazing Rat Catching With Farm Dogs Kill About 500 Rats!

5. Ratting Dogs: Dogs, Not Cats, Are the Ultimate Rat Hunters! “Ratting dogs or ratter dog breeds are glorious. It’s funny that cats get all of the attention for being rat killers when, in reality, the terriers are absolute killing machines.”

6. Rat Terrier savearescue.org

This ought to end your Tilting at windmills for today. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weingarten, Dean. (May 25, 2016) Record Wisconsin Rat Hunt in 1957

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: many thanks, and I hope you and yours have had a very happy and relaxing holiday season as well. All the best for the new year!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hello Amakuru: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: many thanks for the message, I hope you have had a good holiday season and wishing you and yours a very happy new year ahead. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: thanks for the message, wishing you a very happy Christmas (for last week!) and a happy new year 2023.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move review

Move review for Talk:Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul

An editor has asked for a Move review of Talk:Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 67.148.24.106 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!
Hello Amakuru:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN RAJU: sometimes I think a hammer and chisel might be quite useful still around here...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Amakuru!

Happy New Year!

Amakuru,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 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 at the end of 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: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Amakuru!

Happy New Year!

Amakuru,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

January songs
happy new year

... and also from me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today, I point at two singers I whose performance I enjoyed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today, less pointy: a composition from a remarkable 2022 concert, the sad record of four articles about people who recently died on the Main page at the same time, and singing for Epiphany --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article is Osbert Parsley, not by me but Amitchell125 where I commented, including the beginning of my songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation, - click on songs! I tell my own stories now, instead of relying on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's topic Elisabeth Waterhouse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks! How was your vacation?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just look, click on songs - excellent but I'm still missing 3 days in pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one more day but still missing 3 then - today Elena Manistina, or: why Tchaikovsky's The Enchantress isn't on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: nice to see the issues at Elena Manistina were resolved. And what of The Enchantress? Is there a reason it should be on the main page? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ;) - I saw her in the opera, and was really more interested in the opera than the singer. The hook now says where something happens but not which piece. I said on ERRORS that I believe that the opera - the composer's favourite but rarely performed - would be more intriguing than a German opera company (again), but wasn't heard (which is an understatement). - The hook says nothing about the singer, but those running DYK these days want hookiness and performance. I'm out of DYK, life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Oh right, yes I see what you mean. There was a discussion about that sort of thing on the DYK talk page a couple of days ago, my opinion has always been that DYK exists primarily to reward the editor who works on an article. Of course, the readers must be given accurate well-cited information, and we make it as informative as we can, but if it were really solely a reader-focused column then wouldn't we do away with the "new articles" bit altogether and just run the most interesting stuff. It is also certainly not a competition, and page views only matter if you're interested in such things. Anyway, there we go. I had my hook overruled once as well, at Template:Did you know nominations/Rwandan Civil War, I just wanted to give what I thought was the most significant outcome from the subject, but in the end we went for something more tangential because it was hooky. Wishing you a good weekend ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my latest pics, - of three days ago? - Thanks for the word "tangential" - yes, that's what I can't live with: A great singer (Pisarenko), and we say that she studied Norwegian, and another (Manistina), and we say that someone else mimed when she stepped in. That's the most normal thing happening when someone steps in so short notice that the acting can't be taught to her. Manistina acted - and well, and she is the villain - in the third performance that I saw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2020 Final scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 February 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 14, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andry Rajoelina nominated for GA reassessment

Andry Rajoelina has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gianluca Vialli

On 7 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gianluca Vialli, 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. SpencerT•C 17:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I, for one, am absolutely grateful that someone's around to call "bullshit" on my work. You might call yourself a stickler, but that vigilance really only increases my respect for you; far more than if you just rubberstamped the preps. Thank you for setting a good example for promoters and reviewers, and for always pushing me to improve :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: thank you, that really means a lot to me, particularly coming from yourself, who have become the unofficial "face" of DYK in recent years, particularly following the sad loss of Yoninah. And yes, I think it's definitely good that we challenge each other and not be scared to ruffle some feathers of step on a few toes. Ultimately it's our readers who benefit if we get things right, and that's the top priority for all of us. And like yourself I'm always happy to improve things where people point them out to me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more, and thank you for the kind words yourself :) cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Messi

Hello Amakuru Out of curiosity, what do you think about that. Would you mind to eventually help reach (new) consensus? Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cunard Line and commonname and such

I've been pretty consistent over many years in saying that "commonname" doesn't trump the other criteria. It's just a strategy in support of recognizability. To me, Cunard alone wouldn't evoke much other than a misspelling of Canard, but Cunard Line is clearly the cruise line company; apparently several others see it that way. I accept that your experience is the opposite. I happened to take a picture of Cunard's MS Queen Elizabeth at Sydney Harbour today ("MS Queen Elizabeth (QE) is a cruise ship of the Vista class operated by the Cunard Line."). Maybe that has something to do with how I waded into it; or not. Dicklyon (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review

@Amakuru:, As per the request, you moved the article name from "Left Democratic Front (Kerala)" to "Left Democratic Front" on November 2021. But recently an user reverted your move, without any discussion/reason. Although LDF did exist in Maharashtra and Manipur, they are not notable and defunct. I request you to review this case. Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SharadSHRD7: I agree, there was no reason to overturn the consensus in the move discussion, and the situation hasn't changed since then. I've moved it back. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks Amakuru for being extremely helpful. I hope the issues I am facing around will soon get sorted out. Dedicated editors like you make this encyclopedia a great place. Despite you not knowing Urdu, you still made yourself ready to help me. I hope the betterment of ITN on Urdu will have your name among makers. I am hoping to bring it on par with English Wikipedia's ITN. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru&oldid=1135962127"