Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gal Buki (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 31 May 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  • Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
  • Wales Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
  • Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
  • Kingdom of Prussia Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Chicago Barkeep49 with six GAs, United States Ceranthor, England Lee Vilenski, and Saskatchewan Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and Denmark MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refund

Not sure why no admin is touching this can you take a look at the deleted version if there is anything worth salvaging in the deleted version. I suspect there may be.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not undelete it myself; an argument could be made that I'm involved, and it's not urgent enough to be an IAR situation. I have left a comment, though. There's some sources that are worth salvaging, and some details of her personal life (I have not checked whether that material is supported by the sources). Vanamonde (Talk) 11:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. I just wanted to make sure that this was worth following up. I will start a thread at ANI as you suggested. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Your GA nomination of Demolition of the Babri Masjid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Demolition of the Babri Masjid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Macon/Fæ ANI close

I saw your comment at the review request. You don't appear to have absorbed a single point I was making in the request or anything posted after it. "[W]arning them when they are fully aware and choose not to use [specific preferred pronouns not just a compatible approach to gender neutrality] anyway is very much within the spirit of our policies about harassment". It absolutely is not, and I proved it right in front of you, and announced that I was doing so: In writing about Fæ, every single reference I made to that editor specifically avoided Fæ's singular they and instead used the username or some other circumlocution ("the editor", "this user", etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I'm not feeling argumentative at the moment, so I'm not going to bother asking you why you are willing to go to such lengths to avoid the singular they. Even setting that aside, what you did is not why Guy Macon did. He used language that called attention to his refusal to use the singular they despite being asked to do so, and that very much merited the warning he was given. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still not getting it. I regularly use singular they. I did not in that case to disprove that premise that Macon (or anyone else) is being offensive when they choose some other GN writing option. And I very clearly did disprove it, as have thousands of prior editors, unconnected to anything related to Fæ, going about their business since WP's beginning without using singular they. Whether or not I prefer singular they is immaterial. At both the ANI and the AN followup, Macon made it very clear why he doesn't use it, and he is hardly alone on- or off-WP. It's offensive to keep mis-gendering someone with she or he if they're nonbinary; it is not offensive to choose one of the available GN paths and use it (whether that be well-attested neo-pronouns, singular they, or writing around pronouns entirely). We all know this, yet you and others are piling on to deny it, apparently (but who knows, since I can't read minds) out of fear of being in the crosshairs of a TG/NB person who is a well-proven slinger of nasty "transphobic" and "disrespectful of minorities" false accusations (including doing so off-site in a harassment pattern) and who has a growing, canvassed-up entourage. If you aren't going to have the administrative spine to deal with the real problem user here, at least don't make the situation worse, please. Defending someone who should have been re-topicbanned months ago, just to stick it to someone else with less patience than either of us who objects to that editor's disruptive antics, isn't useful. And trying to hand-wave away the points I raised at AN with the idea that because I supported your RfA I should just accept your view makes me now doubt that my support was well placed. I'll give benefit of the doubt and just chalk this up to some kind of "blinded by politicking" temporary lack of clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've disproved nothing; indeed you're just demonstrating that you've got too deep into this mess. There is a fundamental difference between what Guy Macon wrote, and your statement at ANI. I pointed it out once; if you still cannot see it, I cannot be bothered to point it out again. Also, "it is not offensive to choose one of the available GN paths and use it" is quite incorrect. Using a different gender-neutral pronoun isn't misgendering, but it still can be offensive. That opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with Fae, who I already asked to stop poking Guy, and who Floquenbeam also asked to stop poking Guy. I brought up my RFA only to remind you that you once trusted my judgement, and so might be willing to genuinely consider what I had to say. If you are instead doing what far too many experienced Wikipedians do, which is to decide that everyone who has disagreed with you is deficient in judgement, so be it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Using a different gender-neutral pronoun isn't misgendering, but it still can be offensive." Bollocks. Any experience at all with TG/NB people and their forums disproves that. People who prefer to use a set of neo-pronouns use them; those who prefer singular they use that; and some subset try to figure out what the subject prefers (e.g. one specific neo-pronoun set) and use that on a case-by-case basis; meanwhile, many of us just avoid pronouns if we like neither singular they nor neo-pronouns. No where in the world is this an issue except in the imagination of Fæ and apparently you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Fæ and apparently you" and the several other users, admins included, who made the same damn point. I was hardly alone in backing Floquenbeam's closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiryathil Nair‎

Hi, any chance of you keeping an eye on Talk:Kiryathil Nair‎ and the associated article? I'm not planning on responding any further to the anon who has been doing stuff there recently because it doesn't seem to be sinking in. I suspect they will try to restore their bloated crap. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on that talk page, and I've watchlisted it; but my time for Wikipedia is severely limited at the moment, so I can't get too much into the weeds. If they continue to use the same sort of language, though, I'm quite happy to block them; they've now had multiple warnings. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I can live with the language - it is the apparent unwillingness to listen that makes the discussion pointless in my eyes. We'll see what happens next but, so far, it looks like my career as a fortune-teller is stalling. - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Demolition of the Babri Masjid

The article Demolition of the Babri Masjid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Demolition of the Babri Masjid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent. Why not pick a contentious topic next time?! - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! How about Narendra Modi? Oh, wait. Joking aside; I've intended to rewrite our page about the RSS for a while, but simply haven't found the time to begin a project that large. Some day, perhaps. The page is in such terrible shape, but I've come to terms with most contentious topics being in terrible shape. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Technologies Group

(Redacted)

I have revised the content for the product section. It states facts and does not promote any product. Is it okay if I add it now? Titan356 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Titan356: There are two problems here. First, many of these sources are not reliable in this context, because they are based on press releases or are otherwise not intellectually independent of their subject. Second, the language you are using is still of the sort that would belong in a press release, not on an encyclopedia. Indeed most of the details you are looking to add are industry jargon that are not of interest to a general reader. Please go read WP:NOT carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the above content, because it was copied from the corporate website, and that's a violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Thanks: I had meant to perform a copyvio check, but hadn't gotten around to it. Titan356, if you are trying to pass off content copied from the website as "revised" and "not promotional", you shouldn't be editing this article, and I'm beginning to seriously doubt your claim that you have no connection to the topic of the article. Please find a different article to edit, or risk being blocked for promotional editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of libel?

Hi Vanamonde, user:Mhhossein accused me of inserting "defamatory material" to an article, but all I did was add information backed by a source approved at RSN. Is this not "tossing around accusations of libel" as you said in your last warning? Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're seeking for by such sort of reports and comments. last warning included portions such as " WP:BLP is not to be treated lightly; coverage of living people not only needs to be sourced to reliable sources, it needs to reflect all major viewpoints among reliable sources." By the way, just like the other editor said, I suggest you to avoid labeling edits of a newbie as slanderous. --Mhhossein talk 13:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, you cannot repeatedly make false accusations against other editors. This makes the process of working towards consensus disruptive and very negative. Vanamonde was the last admin to warn you, saying "tossing around accusations of libel isn't acceptable". Even here you are not addressing or taking back what you said. This is a legitimate concern for me, this is why I'm brining this here. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a somewhat subtle distinction here; all libelous material violates BLP, but not all BLP-violating material is libelous. Mhhossein should not be making accusations of libel, but Alex, if there's concerns over the source quality, you do need to take them seriously. I would strongly suggest you both try to reach a consensus on what reliable sources say about this individual; genuinely libelous material should be reported to the oversight team. More broadly, though, there's far too much antagonism and too little effort to build consensus on the talk page. You both obviously have different strong opinions about the topic in question. The way to get around that is to constrain the talk page discussion strictly to specific content issues, and take any allegations of misbehavior to a different forum. Please keep in mind that the longer these disputes drag on, and the more personal they become, the more likely it is that everyone on that page will face a draconian sanction, either from the community or from ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: When you say "Mhhossein should not be making accusations of libel", it means that Mhhossein have made "accusations of libel" and he should stop it. This is while I was making it clear for the other party that the content was defamatory and that the BLP issue was serious. You can count the number of RFCs and subsections I have opened on the talk page. Please notice that my last edit to the page dates back to 2 days ago, while others are making reverts on a daily basis. --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhossein, as I've said before, I am not going to get into a comparative analysis of each editor's behavior, because nobody's hands are clean. If there are problems with an editors behavior that are serious enough to sanction (adding libelous content is definitely one of those), you need to first warn them, and then report it. If it's not that serious, you need to maybe leave them a friendly note, and then ignore it. What you (and several others) have done on that page is to continually criticize behavior; whereas the only real way to sort out such a contentious mess is to focus on content, not behavior. Let the admins deal with the behavioral issues; and make that easier for them by making sure your own conduct is absolutely above board. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, a source is approved at RSN, and so I include it in the article, and Mhhossein then accuses me of "restoring defamatory material" (but does not support this accusation, there or here, with any evidence), is this a behavior issue? or is this behavior ok? Alex-h (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for Christ's sake. No, that behavior is not okay. That's why I told Mhhossein it wasn't okay. It also isn't bad enough for me to block him unilaterally, so I didn't do that. Why are you belaboring the point? The thing you should do is ask Mhhossein what issue he has with the source. What you do next depends on his response. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde, you said that if there's concerns over the source quality that I should take them seriously, and I just wanted to show you that I had. Also I did ask Mhhossein, but he wont respond. There is no evidence for his accusation, so it is unlikely that he will respond. Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please go sort this out on the talk page; I've said what I have to say about this particular incident. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Frankfurt School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honoring the WP:RSN

Am I right thinking that one should not get away from reverting an edit approved by WP:RSN?--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RSN is not for "approving edits"; it's for establishing consensus about the use of sources that have been challenged elsewhere. Consensus formed at RSN should not generally be ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Jaffrelot

... is apparently the new target [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I've had that on my watchlist for a while, but wasn't online when this edit was made. I hope it's a one-off. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Politics Arbitration Case

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Central Park jogger case

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Park jogger case. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Bitcoin SV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitcoin SV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. torusJKL (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=899683853"