Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Vanamonde93! Your work on J. K. Rowling has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, much appreciated! Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Events in the evolution of snake venom

Hi Vanamonde93, I'm sorry to notice that you've decided to remove the evolutionary tree here rather than update it. It certainly made the article more readable. It's hard to imagine that updating it to reflect whatever scientific developments you are concerned about would be particularly difficult - we only need to rearrange the tree or add a branch or two... do let me know what the problem is and I'll take a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Chiswick Chap, nice to hear from you. If the revisions were simply an issue of topology within the existing tree, I wouldn't have removed it; the trouble is the scientific consensus has shifted away from a single evolutionary origin for snake venom, toward a multiple origin scenario. We could still have a phylogeny showing venomous snakes, but it would need to be constructed entirely from scratch, and also the protein gain-loss scenarios are, of course, no longer appropriate. I haven't had the time to make a new phylogeny; but I knew the one we had didn't reflect consensus any longer, and removing it seemed appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Um, thanks. Ideally we'd make a new tree from a single source that effectively proposes a phylogeny (with however many points of origin). Do you have a shortlist of papers I could consult to make a tree? (the fewer the better!) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I think this is the most recent comprehensive phylogeny, but I haven't time to parse literature in detail I'm afraid, still traveling with limited time...Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look at it and maybe you'll see a tree when you get back to your desk ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated! Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I've drawn the phylo tree of the *animals* in no time, but it'll take some research to work out what *events* are relevant and where to place them as the old events D, E, F may now be wrong (split up or repositioned). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles.

Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nepal on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
  • Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, 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). 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. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

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

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Featured article review

I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment

I see that you are an admin. In the lead of the article mentioned above, it says, "anti-Hindu sentiment or Hinduphobia" but they are not the same. I asked someone to remove the term "Hinduphobia" on the talk page and was asked to establish a consensus for it. Can you do what it takes to establish a consensus for removing the term "Hinduphobia" from the article (or at least the lead)? 2405:204:5682:8044:0:0:11B7:30B0 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hinduphobia can be replaced with Hindu detestation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.50.22.74 (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
My admin role does not give me any authority over content; why don't you start the discussion yourself? There's nothing stopping you. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey

Good to see you back. We've had plenty of disagreements, but I know you have the best intention for Wikipedia, and I hope you feel similar about me, but YMMV of course! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks, very kind of you. Been traveling, been unwell...but unless something else crops up, I should be back for a bit. I've always liked your content work, glad to see you're active as ever. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, I've almost always liked your administrative work...! Stay well. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Mile 16

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mile 16 you are joining the discussion with your question. Can you remove the relisting and make you comment in the appropriate way or close the AfD in the appropriate way? Thanks Djflem (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Djflem: If I closed the AfD today, I would close it "no consensus", because while assertions have been made that Bolifamba is notable because it meets GEOLAND, no evidence has been provided in support. That is an assessment of the arguments presented at AfD, not my assessment of the evidence itself. Such a closure would waste the time of everyone who has participated at the AfD thus far, and so I'm giving all of you a chance to address the gap in the discussion instead. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You are challenging the people who ivoted to keep the article based on the sources aready in the article, which seems to be joining the discussion rather than a neutral assesessment of it. It is not the job/is inappropriate of a closer to make a request to duplicate them in the AfD discussion, which it appears you are doing. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It is a closer's job to assess the arguments presented therein, which is what I did. Closers are not expected to evaluate the content in the article; that is the role of !voters. So a request to present evidence at the AfD is perfectly reasonable. I didn't evaluate the sources in the article, and I don't intend to: I have no opinion on whether they demonstrate notability, so I have not in any way joined the discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The particpants of the discussion have expressed the fact that they are satifisfied with the evidence. Djflem (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, that doesn't matter; as an AfD closer, "X meets GEOLAND" carries as much weight as "clearly meets GNG"; that is, very little, without further elaboration. If a place meets GEOLAND, we would consider it notable, but just saying it meets GEOLAND doesn't make it so. Furthermore, there are currently only three participants, one of whom appears to disagree with your conclusions. Therefore, I repeat, were I to close the AfD today, I would have to close it "no consensus" (would you prefer that?) and I decline to participate, as I have not examined any evidence outside that AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
If it would help, I would be willing to expand my comment to make it clear that I am referring to evidence presented at AfD, rather than any evidence that may exist elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It certainly does matter if the particpants, after having evaluated the sources in the article, determine that the subject satifies GNG or NGEO, which they have. If the nominator/another particpant would like to question that, that's fine, but that has not happened. That is NOT the role of the closer. You're asking to do makes you a particpant. So it's up to you to decide if you want to take part or close. You can't do both and add another layer to the AfD process, which is what you are doing. There is no closer request for evidence mechanism on Wikipedia. Or if there is can you provide a link to the place that explains it. Djflem (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
That's...just not right, for so many reasons. 1) It is entirely routine for relisters to request more discussion of specific items. 2) You didn't even say you had evaluated sources in the article, and you didn't list which ones establish that the topic meets GEOLAND; you just say that it does. All I'm asking you to do is explain why, because the alternative is a no-consensus closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I haven't seen the exact words you used in your relisting but it is common for admins patrolling AFD and relisting discussions to recommend an evaluation of the new sources or recommending that those advocating "Keep" mention in the AFD the sources they allude are out there. Unless you are advocating Keeping, Deleting, Redirecting or Merging the article yourself, this seems like a pretty common comment if a comment is included in a relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anime distributed in the United States

Hello,
You've closed the above AfD as "merge", which is slightly off the mark. What myself and others have pointed out in the discussion is that administrator assistance is needed to perform WP:HISTMERGE. Basically, we can think of the AfD consensus as a "rename-and-draftify" in support of nominator's intention to salvage usable prose from List of anime distributed in the United States and repurpose it into a different article. However, this is complicated by the fact that nom has already pre-emptively made a cut-and-paste copy of the article at Draft:History of anime in the United States and started editing it. "Merge" isn't correct here, since the content has already been moved, but without the legally required attribution. A history merge is now needed to rectify this, after which the original page can be blanked and redirected.
Thanks, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I missed the comment saying that the draft in question was the same as the cut-and-paste userfication; I thought the comments about a histmerge referred to a different version. I believe my closing statement made it clear that a reworking in draftspace was the outcome that had consensus, and I assumed a histmerge would be handled when needed. I do not perform hist-merges myself, and I'm not going to touch one this complicated with a bargepole. I have amended the closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Responding to woo bafflement

Hi, Vanamonde93, apologies for the length of my comment, and noting up front that I agree with what Tryp proposed, so I won't challenge your close. Brandolini's law comes to mind when I think about having to explain my reasons for deleting that article. Re: your question, suffice it to say that the whole list is woo, including the title, the lead, and the names included in each list. You just caught some of the shrapnel through no fault of your own because your conclusion makes perfect sense, were it not for the fact that the list is woo. I understand why you are of the mind that "kennel clubs do not have a monopoly among reliable sources on the use of "breed" as a classification". While I agree in part with your take on monopoly, my perspective is quite different as an accredited professional with about 50 yrs of private practice in animal husbandry (specializing in dogs, horses, cattle, now happily retired). I tend to agree with scientific researchers and corroborating experts, many of whom have cited KC and AKC in their journal articles, including Nature, and Frontiers in Veterinary Science which describes the AKC as ...the most authoritative organization for the registration and classification of purebred dogs in the United States. Neither the KC nor the AKC condone or will accept any dog or owner that is involved in any form of blood sports.

A classic example of conflated history that is often repeated in various forms is evident in this master's thesis wherein it states: Dogfighting began to gain popularity not only in the South but throughout the United States in 1817, “when the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was brought to this country” (Coleman 2008:105; Fleig 1996). Vanamonde, the modern purebred dog we know as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier did not exist in 1817. There were no breed registries in the early– to mid–19th century, no documented pedigrees, and it is generally accepted that dogs were named according to function, not breed. It doesn't require OR to figure that out, it's a matter of WP:CIR. According to genetic research (see DNA section at Bull and terrier), it was likely a mixed breed from the heterogeneous group of bull and terrier crosses +who knows what else that breeders crossed after happy hour at the local pub in the Black Country. I refer to the progeny of such mixed breeds as being sired by Junk Yard Dog out of the foundation dam Dint See It Comin. It is general knowledge that visual IDs are unreliable, so I won't elaborate.

When it comes to the complexities of dog breeding, much is lost to laypersons and outdated beliefs relative to (a) phenotypic/genetics, (b) an understanding that dog breeds are not species, (c) that socialization, proper training and environment are huge influences on dog behavior, and (d) certain behaviors are inherent in individual dogs regardless of breed, including the undesirable trait of aggression. In summary, there is no such thing as "dog fighting breeds" which is incorrect terminology that is being misused. All dogs will fight regardless of breed, modern breeds are not genetic duplicates of their pit fighting ancestors, and "pit bull" is a stereotype created in big part by media sensationalism that was and still is starving for verifiable facts. Perhaps use-mention distinction issues are part of the problem, such as the mention of mastiff meaning any large dog vs English Mastiff, a verifiable purebred dog thanks to modern breed registries like the KC and AKC. (Fleig 1996) is cited in the history section in some of our dog articles, as is Morris (2001) and Fogle (2009), which tends to perpetuate some of the myths, or unverifiable "presumed" history, long since questioned by relatively recent genetic research and wide-spread studies that strongly suggest otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 16:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

With respect, Atsme, I think you're missing the point of what I wrote. I dare say I've read more papers on phylogenetics than the majority of "delete" !voters in that AfD; I'm well aware of the problems with taxonomy of any kind from before the genetic era. My point is simply that when reliable sources have listed names for "breeds" used in dog-fighting, it doesn't matter whether they were right or wrong, that content needs to be covered in some form. If they were wrong, then the content needs to document that fact, but it's still not something we simply ignore. You are effectively arguing that anything that discusses "breeds" before KCs existed is an unreliable source, which is a novel argument that you will need to take to RSN. Tryptofish's idea is a workable way to deal with both pieces of this problem. Another method would be to write an article about the terminology used to describe fighting dogs; or a short page/section about characteristics of fighting dogs. There's several options here, that I am not going to take any positions on. Outright deletion isn't one of them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I know Atsme said at my talk that she would take the discussion here so it wouldn't need my attention any further – but I couldn't help taking a look. In fairness to Atsme, I don't think she is really arguing that sources that discuss breeds before the modern KCs are de facto unreliable. It's just that those that mention such breeds without acknowledging other sources that explain the differences between dogs back then and the present-day breeds are leaving something important out, and our content needs to avoid that oversimplification. In any case, bottom line, I think all three of us agree that the idea of converting the content from a list to text is a good solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree our content needs to avoid that oversimplification; my point is just that we cannot set it aside altogether. I do think discussing it in prose form would be the cleanest solution, but others could be fashioned. I'll leave y'all to hash it out on the talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For all your assistance and input! Joyce-stick (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 05:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of most-followed artists on Spotify

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of most-followed artists on Spotify. 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. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Query re AE blocks

Hi Vanamonde! Query regarding your comment at the AE thread for Johnpacklambert: Since it's a direct TBAN by ArbCom, and not a DS sanction, wasn't the maximum permitted block one month per WP:ARBDEL#Enforcement of restrictions? That's what he got in the end anyways, so this is a purely academic question, but since you implied up to a year was on the table, thought I'd ask. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I think you're quite right; I had forgotten that provision applied, as it's JPL's first violation of ARBCOM's decision. I was speaking to generic AE blocks, which are limited to a year. Or at least, I believe they are; individual admins cannot apply AE blocks for longer than a year, and no explicit alternative is provided at AC/DS for admin consensus at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Hi, I saw this edit, and it appears that you're unaware that many databases, including ProQuest, are available to all users who meet certain minimum requirements (which you easily do) – no need to request access. Just go to your Wikipedia Library and click on the login button (which should automatically log you in). Currently, you'll have instant access to 58 databases ("My Collections"), and can also see/apply for the 45 which still require you to submit an application ("Available Collections").  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Our Proq access is quite poor, compared to any decent institutional library in Global North. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Thanks for that; I'll look into it. I believe that when I first signed up for TWL access (Project Muse, which has been invaluable to me) this wasn't the case. TB, good to know, likewise. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Everyone used to have to apply for every database they wanted access to, and limited numbers were available, so if they weren't quick enough, they might end up on a waiting list. (BTW, our ProQuest access does include all of the ones cited in that article.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  07:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Well if I'm not going to cut into the access of someone who'd use it more, I wouldn't say no to more sources :) I'll click the buttons when I have a moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I have a question, I'm not familiar with merging discussions. you closed the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games – Men's Freestyle 57 kg and the result was merging. Can I redirect those pages into the new merged article ? or it still needs another discussion? thanks. Sports2021 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sports2021: A merge outcome usually means that any content from the source articles that's worth keeping at the target needs to be copied or adapted there, after which the source pages can be redirected. I do not have the time to cross-check if this has been done yet, but it's what I would suggest you do. No further discussion is mandated, but if there is disagreement as to how much content needs merging, then opening a discussion would be appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for all your kind words and help! Much appreciate the successful nomination of the Stockford article. Best wishes and please have a wondeful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

My pleasure. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For works e.i "Do you know". Thank you! Optima D (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 14:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Johannesburg (song)

On 31 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Johannesburg (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gil Scott-Heron's 1975 song "Johannesburg" was banned in South Africa during apartheid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Johannesburg (song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Johannesburg (song)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! Vanamonde (Talk) 10:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy Sixth Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks, Chris troutman! Vanamonde (Talk) 05:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Christin Lilja

Hey, any chance you could reopen this? One of the crucial requirements of NSPORT is that all articles must contain at least one source of independent SIGCOV, but no such source was verified in the AfD (as you noted in your close). Since only one editor put forth an IAR argument, there was also not a consensus to overrule the guideline. While I don't think delete !voters should be forced to bring up SPORTCRIT #5 at every single sports AfD (if the deletion rationale is "doesn't meet NSPORT", keep !voters should explicitly advance the claim that #5 is met by a specific source, otherwise they are not actually rebutting the DELREASON), I understand the difficulty in closing when no one actually points this out. It's possible other editors may not be aware of the new NSPORT criteria, so I believe it would be helpful for me to add that in. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I also found it odd that you closed keep but also went on to say "if these are found not to meet the bar for GNG, a new AfD may be needed". The idea that anyone can throw in random inaccessible sources without confirming their content seems to violate WP:NRV, by which notability -- and, in the case of NSPORT, SIGCOV -- has to be demonstrated. By your own apparent admission, this wasn't done. A local consensus to keep cannot override a global consensus on the necessity of verifiably SIGCOV sources on sportspeople, so can you consider closing it as 'no consensus' instead? Avilich (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay and Avilich: The issue is that we do not require that all readers be able to access sources; verifiable means the source needs to exist, not that you need to be able to read it. The same logic would apply for an offline source, or a source in a different language. I'm willing to revisit closure, but demanding deletion without actually verifying the sources the "keep" voters are talking about isn't productive, because they have an a priori reasonable argument. I suggest you go to WP:RX and try to get source access first. If the sources turn out to be substantive, the argument is moot; if they turn out not to be, a new AfD will be far more effective at establishing consensus for deletion in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't speak for JoelleJay, but I'm explicitly not 'demanding deletion', nor saying that all readers must be able to acess sources (though at least some should? -- most keep voters themselves didn't seem to actually look at the sources, and pretending SIGCOV exists isn't the same as confirming it), nor denying that sources exist. I'm arguing that a 'keep' outcome, as opposed to 'no consensus', is incompatible with your own statement that another AfD may be necessary since SIGCOV was not securely proven. It may be a small difference, but renominations of a previously kept article are likelier to be challenged on procedural grounds. Avilich (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Avilich: I'm not characterizing you, but the AfD as a whole. Regardless, I see your point, but consider the counter-argument that an AfD closed "no consensus" is far likelier to be renominated, and any renomination that does not evaluate the sources found in this one is a waste of time. I'd in principle be willing to amend this to a custom closure that says that the result is predicated on the sources being verified, but I suspect that would lead to more drama. Why not just check the source out? Vanamonde (Talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, there was this article for which I created a 2nd AfD because I deemed that the 1st, which had been closed as no consensus, had not discussed the sources well enough. It was closed as keep not based on the finding of any SIGCOV source, but on the allegation that bias against the subject's country/ethnicity had caused hypothetical sources to become inaccessible, and in the end I was labeled 'tendentious' and disruptive for my trouble. Whatever your opinion on that, I suspect that drama and poor use of time are inherent features of AfD and beyond my control. I don't plan on renominating the one you closed anytime soon, so you needn't expect more drama from me, but if anyone wants to review the sources in good faith they should not be discouraged by a keep consensus which I don't think exists. Avilich (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's rather odd to say my closure will discourage people from evaluating the sources, when that's what I explicitly asked everyone to do. Believe me when I say I recognize the endemic problems at AfD. I'm glad to hear you're not interested in renominating immediately, but you don't speak for everyone. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
But none of the keep !voters actually accessed the NT sources either (nor do they claim to!), they are just asserting there "might" be SIGCOV based on the headlines. That's the major quibble I have with this close. If someone had actually been able to read those articles and verify they had SIGCOV we wouldn't have a problem (well, other than GNG still not being met). JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware. Nobody accessed the sources. So it comes down to what the default assumption is about those sources and the topic, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume those are trivial. I'm willing to amend the closure to read "no consensus defaulting to keep", and saying that those sources will need evaluation before any consensus can be reached. I think that's a reasonable summary of what I've been saying here. I'm not, however, willing to close "delete", or even a flat "no consensus" that will allow for a new nomination before source evaluation. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!

The is the backside of a goat. For the roll-"back" trial. Get it! :)

Enjoy your day. :)

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope the rollback is useful. To be quite honest I barely use it these days. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green October 2022 Good Article Editathon

Hello Vanamonde93:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

From your listing at FAC mentors, you are listed for possible interest in Politics. For the past several months, I've been editing the article for the president's article for James Madison, and have made a successful GAN promotion. After the successful GAN promotion, the article then had a very nice GOCE copy editing done by a good reviewer which enhanced it more. Any interest for you to possibly be a co-nominator or mentor for FAC nomination for this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Thanks for asking. I'd be happy to take a look at it; it's not my area of specialization, so I can't do any heavy lifting, and won't conominate. It may be a few days before I get to it though, I have a number of things I'm tangled up in on-wiki and in real life. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'm also ready to do the heavy lifting on this, with any help edits you might offer from time to time. Your edit expertise could be applied to interactions with Wikimedia, images, formats, etc. Your politics edits on various articles look like they might be useful for this type of article. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look when I have a moment, I was just handed another RL deadline. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
From your comment to contact you after about a week regarding the James Madison article. There's no rush about this, and just asking if you might have any interest in moving forward with either a co-nomination or mentoring for a FAC nomination maybe later this month or next month? (If its of interest, then there are some comments from HF on the Talk page there for someone who is good with FAC experience). ErnestKrause (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I'll try to take a look soon. Still a no on co-nominating, I'm afraid, but I'm willing to look through once again. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_44&oldid=1118475979"