Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Amakuru. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
| 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 |
Sorry, but I'm really sick of the blatant ignoring of INVOLVED by a number of admins, and since nobody else is saying anything about it, I thought I would. In my ideal Wiki world, a violation of INVOLVED like that would cause a whole bunch of admins to swarm against the violator in reaction. I can dream, can't I? --В²C ☎ 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: yes, I do agree with you in principle. There was no call for that INVOLVED reversal of your actions when there had been no attempt to discuss it with you. I do support the spirit of your proposal to warn JzG, but given the reactions we've already seen to the proposal from those who are unjustly baying for your blood, there's little chance of the proposal for a warning succeeding, and I don't personally think it's a fight worth fighting. You're welcome to ignore my advice here, but as hard as it might be I would recommend that you try to turn the other cheek and just keep focusing on the actual work of building an encyclopedia and getting our article names in good order, rather than getting embroiled in battles with those who disagree with you. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- "unjustly baying for your blood". At this point I became interested in your contributions to main, have you got something as excitable as that for me to read? cygnis insignis 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignia: I'm not sure I follow you... You want me to highlight contributions I've made that are as exciting as blood baying? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is dog latin, I forgive the misspelling. If you could, even if the topic is boring there are ways to amplify and control the narrative. cygnis insignis 08:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cygnis insignia: I'm not sure I follow you... You want me to highlight contributions I've made that are as exciting as blood baying? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- "unjustly baying for your blood". At this point I became interested in your contributions to main, have you got something as excitable as that for me to read? cygnis insignis 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
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:
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.
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.- 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.
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).
Good day.
Sorry for bothering you. But a troll group is active in Wikipedia. Their actions are directed against one company. I previously worked for this company. The attacks have not stopped for about 8 years. This group began active actions immediately after the conclusion of contracts with the United Arab Emirates. This is a company engaged in the development of new transport technology. Now a testing ground is being built in the UAE within the framework of the American University of Sharjah.
Analysis of changes.
1. The name has been changed. “String Transport” by “SkyWay Group”. String Transport is a transportation technology that has been developed by scientist and inventor Anatoli Yunitski since the 1970s. Now the company founded by this person has its own project designing bureau, production facilities, test site, and the construction of a test line in the UAE has begun. SkyWay Group is a non-existent term that does not relate to String Transport.
2. Earlier, Anatoli Yunitski tried to start working in different countries. Thus, a demo sample based on a ZIL truck was even built in Russia in the 1990s. This clearly proved a high durability and reliability of string track structures. But in Russia, repeated attempts to take away promising developments were made. As a result, Yunitski was forced to leave the project. This story repeated in Australia. After a long search for a suitable region, it was decided to return to Belarus, where everything had to be started anew. And now, when the company SkyWay Technologies is close to bringing the project to life, trolls’ activity increased.
3. The article reads: “Unfortunately, no one from the SkyWay Group has ever implemented a project outside Belarus” - this is a lie. Video from the construction site in the UAE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz0PIqa2o18.
4. The article says: “Although many countries, including Australia, India, Indonesia, Italy, Lithuania and the United Arab Emirates started negotiations with the SkyWay group, no projects have been implemented” - a lie again. Memorandums have been signed and cooperation continues, however, no country can begin construction until the technology has passed certification, the company's employees are actively working on it now. (At least 2 months ago, when I worked there, it was like this).
5. The article contains false information about financial irregularities - another slander from the detractors of the project. There are no securities related to string transport on sale. Investors are invited to purchase part of the intellectual property rights, the evaluation of which is deposited as the authorized capital in a company attracting investments. Central banks have not found any illegal actions done by representatives of companies offering to invest in the technology development in exchange for a part of the intellectual property rights, and regulators have issued a warning to secure themselves and relieve themselves of responsibility. Thus, in spite of the warning, there are major investors of the project in Germany, and Slovakia awarded the International Peace Prize to the General Designer of String transport for “a significant contribution to the development of human civilization, improvement of human living conditions and ensuring safety throughout the world.” https://www.teraz.sk/slovensko/tradicne-ankety-zdruzenia-nef-hospod/358270-clanok.html There are many other points in this article. I ask you to interfere because the standard methods for resolving disputes in Wikipedia do not help. I watched the history of changes and discussion of the article. A group of ill-wishers has misled the administrators. They started it all over a month ago. There is a forum in Russia, in which they coordinate their work: they discussed there the possibility of creating or replacing the page doing discrediting videos on YouTube.
Attempts to edit the article did not lead to any result. Five other users and me were suspended and called it vandalism. But how would you call the things that these people did?
Help me to return the article or delete it completely, thank you for any help. In my turn, I am ready to help with the creation of an article containing objective information. Based on facts and my experience as an engineer. You should understand that it's unpleasant to watch how they destroy what you have been working on for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksei Pobol (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing. - checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I worked very hard last night to fill Preps 3 and 4 with women-only hooks for March 8 International Women's Day. (See discussion at WT:DYK#Women's history month.) I left one hook which I approved (and therefore wasn't able to promote) in the special occasion holding area for March 8, and we also have some other women's hooks in the special occasion holding area under March. I don't understand why you filled the empty slots in Prep 4 with men's hooks. Would you be able to swap them out with Template:Did you know nominations/Tanya Saracho and something else from the March holding area? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Collective is also a good candidate for a non-bio slot. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: oh, I'm sorry... I had no idea. It was just that we were down to less than twelve hours to go, and I didn't know anyone was coming back so I filled things in as best as I could. I don't have time to work on it right now I'm afraid, but I can push the two back from queue to prep so you can have a bit longer to get it into the state you want. Let me know once that's done and I can repromote back to the queues. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand the argument that there is no primary topic based on historical significance, but what about usage? The page views show the film gets far more views. --В²C ☎ 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: I suppose this comes down to the point you made on your talk page that the rules aren't clearly written and it depends on who shows up as to what result gets chosen. I probably tend to rank significance a bit more highly than popularity myself, particularly when it's a film based on a book and both are clearly very significant. Obviously that's a hand-wavy answer though, and I can well see why other editors would feel differently. — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. I suppose ranking historical significance a bit more highly than usage means it's unlikely you would favor removing the significance criteria altogether, LOL. I wish we could at least say that if one criteria does not favor either, but the other criterion does favor one topic, to go with that topic as being primary. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: yeah, I definitely wouldn't get rid of significance altogether... that would probably mean changing textbook examples like Apple vs Apple Inc. - the page view statistics are always skewed for that one, which is probably inevitable in our tech-mad world, but I think most people agree that the primary topic is set correctly in that instance, and I don't remember it being significantly challenged before. — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. I suppose ranking historical significance a bit more highly than usage means it's unlikely you would favor removing the significance criteria altogether, LOL. I wish we could at least say that if one criteria does not favor either, but the other criterion does favor one topic, to go with that topic as being primary. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you just promoted this set before I could fix one of the hooks. The Farm Vegetarian Cookbook hook should say at the end "any European language". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit on Cyclone Idai per WP:CALC. All totals are accurately sourced, albeit it needs some reworking as new information comes out. NoahTalk 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: I'm sorry, the bar for WP:CALC is higher than that. Its fine if it is a well-explained footnote with every source detailed and verifiable, but that is not the case here. If you wish to use that figure, please put all citations into the one footnote and explain the calculation, otherwise it is not possible for an outsider to confirm or verify it and as a figure used on the main page it must be beyond dispute. In the meantime, the source I have provided is a recent source and gives an overall figure of more than 150. Which in any case is not wrong even if the actual figure is more then 173. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Should be fixed. NoahTalk 22:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: excellent, thank you. I have updated "in the news" accordingly. — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Should be fixed. NoahTalk 22:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Re the RM close at Talk:Gawwada language: I guess this might have been a difficult one to deal with, but it kind of ends up sustaining the perception, common among people who edit language articles, that RMs are at best a waste of time. We're sticking to a name that's both obsolete and pejorarive simply because one editor has shown up to oppose marshalling a bunch of largegely irrelevant quotes from the guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: thanks for your message, and I'm sorry you feel that there is a futility in the RM process. As a closer I have to assess the discussion as I find it, and I found the arguments effectively offsetting in this case. I've put a comment to that effect at the bottom of the RM now. For what it's worth, I disregarded the long requoting of the RM guidelines, I am well familiar with those, but the range of sources presented by the opposition was certainly valid. If there is a case for WP:NAMECHANGES or WP:COMMONNAME in favour of the Ale language idea, then it needs to be presented with more evidence. Anyway, I've relisted for another week so hopefully some sort of way forward can be found in that time. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for relisting it! To be fair, the futility that is sometimes seen in the RM process is not peculiar to RM, as far as I can see this becomes common to all of wikipedia's formal discussions whenever the issue revolves around subject-specific matters. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads up. Your edit to plum brandy contained an error. You wrote that it was a drink. It is not (as the main text states in greater detail). It is a plum soaked in brandy. I corrected that, at the article. Unfortunately, the error found its way onto the main page. I have notified them of that. Cheers Gulbenk (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know when Rwandan Civil War will be scheduled at TFA, but I'm hoping to get people to look at the FAs that were promoted in January, including this one. This is a hard blurb to write because a lot happened. I tried using some standard methods on it and this is what I wound up with ... doesn't mean this is right, of course, and it needs to be shrunk further (from 1063 characters to 1025 or less). I stopped the narrative at the capture of Kigali ... the stuff after that is important, but you could make the argument if you wanted to that it doesn't need to be in the blurb since it comes after civil war. So ... thoughts? What can be trimmed? - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The Rwandan Civil War was a conflict between the Hutu-led Rwandan Armed Forces and the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), founded by Tutsi refugees. The army, assisted by French troops, had largely defeated the RPF by the end of October 1990. Paul Kagame took command of the rebels, withdrawing troops to the Virunga mountains for several months before beginning a guerrilla war. A series of protests forced Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana to begin peace negotiations with the RPF and domestic opposition parties. Despite disruption by the extremist group Hutu Power and a fresh RPF offensive in early 1993, the Arusha Accords were signed in August 1993. United Nations peacekeepers were installed, but the Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence. After the assassination of President Habyarimana in April 1994, between half a million and a million Tutsi and moderate Hutu were killed in the Rwandan genocide. The RPF quickly resumed the civil war, capturing the capital, Kigali, in July, and they remain in power as of 2019. (Full article...)
- @Dank: thanks for this. Looks reasonable so far. I'll have a look at it over the next week or two and get back to you with any suggestions. As for dates, probably either 4 July (liberation day commemorating the capture of Kigali), or 1 October (first day of the war) might be good choices. Cheers! — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't handle scheduling, but you can grab a slot on WP:TFAP ... that's usually reliable unless you get competition for the date. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I think we need to work out the YPF hook before Prep 1 is ready for promotion. I've entered an alt on the ERRORS thread. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you're comfortable promoting the April Fools sets now, they're ready. Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, we regularly get complaints if one image is on the main page for too long, in this case Mueller, so we try to rotate other images in and out for freshness. Given that Barr is the person to whom the report was delivered and was already mentioned in the blurb, it seemed reasonable to swap to his image. Why do you think this is a controversial edit that you've undone without discussion? Stephen 23:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Stephen: in principle I agree with you, and in general it's certainly a good idea to swap the image every so often. But you know how controversial that hook had already been; the mention of the Attorney General was already felt to be undue by several people. The story is not about him, he just happens to be the person who received the report. So yes, swap the pic, but not to something that doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the story. Anyway, it's a moot point now because the Slovakia president is now the top story! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I simply do not see any good reason for "pulling" this. The hook is and was clear and factually correct, especially with ALT1. There is sensibly no DYK rule against words being repeated, which is sometimes necessary, as it is here, and choosing ALT1 would have been the way to deal with the very trivial point raised. I protest in the strongest possible terms and I should be grateful if you would spend some time sorting this out. Moonraker (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have replied at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Harry_B._Neilson. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru I have also replied there, and I am asking where I can go to complain. Please link the page I need. Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: I guess if you want to discuss whether what I did was acceptable within the DYK project, you can post the question at WT:DYK. If you want to raise a more serious complaint about my actions, then WP:ANI is the place to go, although I wouldn't recommend that... it would be more constructive just to find a way forward on the nomination page and it can be re-promoted back to the main page queue. I'm sorry that you feel the process is failing, but I think preserving the integrity and reliability of the main page, as the main gateway to Wikipedia, is worth the occasional annoyance when things are delayed a few days. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru I shall indeed raise it at WT:DYK, but you are not dealing with the issues here, you are in denial. There was no good reason to pull the hook, there was never any suggestion of anything that was a threat to "the integrity and reliability of the main page". If you say there was, please give details of what exactly you saw as a possible problem. You are adding time-consuming delays and extra stages onto something which is already complicated and user-unfriendly, without the slightest justification. Please explain yourself better. If you will not do that, then that would be the reason for taking the matter to WP:ANI. Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: I guess if you want to discuss whether what I did was acceptable within the DYK project, you can post the question at WT:DYK. If you want to raise a more serious complaint about my actions, then WP:ANI is the place to go, although I wouldn't recommend that... it would be more constructive just to find a way forward on the nomination page and it can be re-promoted back to the main page queue. I'm sorry that you feel the process is failing, but I think preserving the integrity and reliability of the main page, as the main gateway to Wikipedia, is worth the occasional annoyance when things are delayed a few days. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru I have also replied there, and I am asking where I can go to complain. Please link the page I need. Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru I see you have still not explained yourself. I have two other issues I want to raise with you:
- I asked you on the nomination page about whether I had been correctly notified that the nomination needed to be relinked. You did not have the courtesy to reply. I was told later that this is a task for the person "pulling" a hook. Why did you not do it, and why did you not reply?
- I see some concerns (which I find trivial) were raised at ERRORS early on the morning of 3 April. Why did you leave it until the late evening to ping me, not even putting a note on my talk page, and then "pull" the hook in a hurry before I had replied?
Answers will be appreciated, and indeed apologies. Moonraker (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: I apologise for not responding to your questions earlier, and as I said before I'm sorry that you're upset about this, I don't like to cause anyone distress. But I'm not going to apologise for removing the hook from the queue. As noted on the talk page there are some issues worth discussing, and even though I misunderstood the extent to which Maile was really complaining about the "depicted" issue it certainly seemed confusing enough for me, because "depicted" can be used figuratively to describe an author setting a scene in a book, it doesn't always have to be a literal depiction. But as I said before, when issues are raised we err on the side of caution and although it's annoying to have to wait a few more days for your hook to be on the main page, it is better that than risking putting something inaccurate on the main page. And the subsequent discussion around the hook, the bibliography section, and other things can only be useful in ensuring that we get the best version of this we can onto the main page. It's up to you what you want to do, but my suggestion is that you stop thinking about what happened, and my role in it, but concentrate on getting a satisfactory version agreed. Once that's done I'll be happy to promote the hook back to the queues for you. I won't be commenting any more on what happened in the past. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru, I was not "distressed", I was angry about your bad call, your nit-picking, and your gross discourtesy in not bothering to notify me in good time and not replying to reasonable questions. You are still in denial in what you say about "depicted": almost every word in the English language has enough ambiguity for you to justify "pulling" half the hooks that go to the Main page on that argument. For all I know, you may plan to go on doing it. You did not trouble to relink the nomination page, someone else had to do that. And now the dust has settled on it, who (I wonder) will close the "discussion" that you insisted on and put the article back into a queue? Please do let me know here. Moonraker (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: I apologise for not responding to your questions earlier, and as I said before I'm sorry that you're upset about this, I don't like to cause anyone distress. But I'm not going to apologise for removing the hook from the queue. As noted on the talk page there are some issues worth discussing, and even though I misunderstood the extent to which Maile was really complaining about the "depicted" issue it certainly seemed confusing enough for me, because "depicted" can be used figuratively to describe an author setting a scene in a book, it doesn't always have to be a literal depiction. But as I said before, when issues are raised we err on the side of caution and although it's annoying to have to wait a few more days for your hook to be on the main page, it is better that than risking putting something inaccurate on the main page. And the subsequent discussion around the hook, the bibliography section, and other things can only be useful in ensuring that we get the best version of this we can onto the main page. It's up to you what you want to do, but my suggestion is that you stop thinking about what happened, and my role in it, but concentrate on getting a satisfactory version agreed. Once that's done I'll be happy to promote the hook back to the queues for you. I won't be commenting any more on what happened in the past. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King's Cross Thameslink railway station 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ritchie333 — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still reviewing at the moment, but can I ask you to address the copyvio concerns I have put in the review - this needs to be dealt with ASAP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Ah, you mean material that matches other articles on Wikipedia? But, per WP:COPYWITHIN, material copied from other articles isn't a copyvio as long as it's properly noted in the edit summary, for attribution purposes. The copying is noted here, here and here. I will have a look at it to see if there's too much detail, but I would have thought the background on the area applies equally to this station as it does to King's Cross, given they were opened in the same timeframe... Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't remember if attribution in edit summaries is sufficient, or whether you need something on the talk page. I've asked somebody who's more clued in to these things. I still think it could do with a bit of a trim, regardless, and doing so will make the copyvio concerns moot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Ah, you mean material that matches other articles on Wikipedia? But, per WP:COPYWITHIN, material copied from other articles isn't a copyvio as long as it's properly noted in the edit summary, for attribution purposes. The copying is noted here, here and here. I will have a look at it to see if there's too much detail, but I would have thought the background on the area applies equally to this station as it does to King's Cross, given they were opened in the same timeframe... Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still reviewing at the moment, but can I ask you to address the copyvio concerns I have put in the review - this needs to be dealt with ASAP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology - they are often a rarity round here, but very appreciated when received. I hope your day gets better, and have a kitten to destress you! Cheers -
SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the kitten, SchroCat, that's much appreciated and will definitely improve my day. Things do get heated over silly issues here on WP, and usually I try my best to avoid confrontation wherever possible and keep things civil so this morning was an unfortunate lapse. Thanks for the good wishes anyway... I was woken up first thing with some problems with building work we're doing at home, and other people yelling at me over the phone. Managed to sort it all out in the end though, and the world looks better after some breakfast and a coffee! — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure it had got as far as that, but your call.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: maybe, but it looked like feelings were running high on both sides, so better to nip it in the bud by giving a 24-hour cool off protection and starting a talk page discussion. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, I just forgot caps lock was on.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, this looks like it has gotten bizarrely personal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: <sighs>... we could have hoped it would not have ended up that way, but without too much expectation. Good luck. — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, this looks like it has gotten bizarrely personal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, I just forgot caps lock was on.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru. Thank you for getting involved. Apparently we did need some mediation.
@Both. I had not anticipated a dispute. I have edited several Wikipedia articles over 12 years...not many, but a few...and I have never been involved in a dispute. I was surprised to see the reversion so quickly and with a comment that was untrue and did not address the non-NPOV argument I made in the edit.
@Both. Having never had a dispute and never getting involved in talk, I am unfamiliar with the procedures. I have expertise on the topic. I am very familiar with the Wikipedia Pillars. I am almost totally unfamiliar with how to talk.
@Slatersteven. This is not personal for me. Merely mentioning your name in the talk isn't making it personal. It is referring specifically to someone who took action to revert my changes without addressing the reasons for my change. I disagree with your assertions that there was ever a consensus. Looking through the history of this section that you provided, I see numerous objections to its inclusion. Having a majority of interested parties falling on your side is not a consensus. A consensus is "general agreement" and there has never been general agreement on having this section. Calling you out on POV bias is not getting personal. It is following the rules. The history of the discussion of this topic is filled with inflammatory rhetoric about the shootings. I am not the one being emotional here. I'm trying to keep this entry simply about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Rmmiller44: Consensus can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_142 –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The article King's Cross Thameslink railway station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:King's Cross Thameslink railway station for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Amakuru. You two days ago closed a RM at Talk:Astana. Someone has immediately reopened a new identical one. Is there a procedure to speedy close this or similar, lest everyone have to restate the same points? Best, CMD (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Chipmunkdavis: long time, I hope you're well! And Thanks for the heads up on Astana. I've done a procedural close on the new RM. It's clear that it's too soon to restart the debate now when we're waiting for new evidence to emerge. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Would you be willing to give me belated credit for this ITN item? I usually don't complain about not getting credit, but I'm especially proud of this cap, since it was so hard fought. Elections are so difficult to get posted at ITN these days. This one edit took me nearly 4 hours because I don't speak Slovakian.----- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: OK, done. Sorry for not doing this before, and many thanks from me for your hard work on this article. — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The article King's Cross Thameslink railway station you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:King's Cross Thameslink railway station 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
|
|
Technical news
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
Miscellaneous
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Amakuru. In your recent edit to Rootabaga stories, you introduced a reference named Greenwood, but failed to define it. My guess here is that you were copying wikitext from another page, but I can't find where you were copying it from. Do you know what that reference is supposed to be, or where it came from? Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
When you made News Corporation into a DAB page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. Creating that DAB page broke 2,803 links: 20.9% of the bad links to DAB pages reported by User:DPL bot on 11 April 2019. The typical number of new bad links to DAB pages is around 500-800 per day, and they all need to be fixed by hand. Narky Blert (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert: apologies, I hadn't realised the number was so huge. Will think about that issue more when moving pages in future. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
After three days you have still not replied to my question above, which is still not the way an Admin should behave. I am going to raise this matter again at WT:DYK. Moonraker (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, I see you 've SP'd the above article a mere 26 minutes from its creation on the pretext of persistent vandalism. I've looked at the edit history and I can only see one instance of minor vandalism. Could you please unprotect it. Thanks, Silas Stoat (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, please do not remove the protection. There was much more than one occurrence of vandalism. Just keep it as it is and everything will be fine. CLCStudent (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. I think from the level of vandalism that the Notre-Dame de Paris article was seeing earlier, it would be unwise to unprotect the fire article at this stage. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, vandalism on the Notre-Dame article. Virtually none on the fire article. As you know, preemptive protection is not permitted except under exceptional circumstances such as where sanctions apply to an article. I would also add that fast-moving news articles such as this are great for attracting new users. Unfortunately this is not possible at the moment, so I would urge you to unprotect and see how it goes. Thanks, Silas Stoat (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again Amakuru, I just checked the entire edit history up to the point of protection. There is just a single instance of vandalism (), so it really should be unprotected at this point. Thanks, Silas Stoat (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Silas Stoat: your best bet is to post at WP:RPP and ask for it to be lifted, then maybe another admin will do it. I'd rather not myself at this stage, but someone else may have another opinion. The level of vandalism at Notre-Dame de Paris was just too high and this would probably be the next target. — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I just posted there. Thanks. Sorry to say this, but the guy who requested SP is a liar. His response to my request on his Talk page is reminiscent of a two-year-old. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Now the fire page is being repeatedly vandalized, so Amakuru's initial action seems correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I just posted there. Thanks. Sorry to say this, but the guy who requested SP is a liar. His response to my request on his Talk page is reminiscent of a two-year-old. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Silas Stoat: your best bet is to post at WP:RPP and ask for it to be lifted, then maybe another admin will do it. I'd rather not myself at this stage, but someone else may have another opinion. The level of vandalism at Notre-Dame de Paris was just too high and this would probably be the next target. — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. I think from the level of vandalism that the Notre-Dame de Paris article was seeing earlier, it would be unwise to unprotect the fire article at this stage. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Id say keep it protected to prevent adding nonsense, even if it means I cannot add anything usefull. 208.54.36.166 (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the nonsense on the notre dame fire. It's really disrespectfull. 208.54.36.166 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- @208.54.36.166: you're welcome. Articles like this are always likely to attract a high degree of vandalism when they're the top story in the news. We just need to make sure we stay on top of it. If it gets too bad we might have to put WP:SEMIPROTECTION back on the article, but wherever possible that is to be avoided since it prevents new users from helping out. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I know, again, it's disrespectfull. Just think of all the history lost and the crying Parisans, sad. ;(. 208.54.36.166 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there was no consensus on the Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Ture rename, but doesn't that mean it should go back to what it was? It was always at Stokely Carmichael until it was moved without discussion or consensus a couple weeks ago. I should think that would be the default unless there's a consensus to move it.—Chowbok ☠ 00:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Seconded. No consensus should equal being moved back to the stable version before the undiscussed move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- oh yes, apologies I didn't realise the longterm version was the other name. Will amend accordingly. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- oh yes, apologies I didn't realise the longterm version was the other name. Will amend accordingly. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't see your comments on Template:Did you know nominations/Harry B. Neilson until now. You asked if there were any objections; well, it may be a little late, but I have the same objection as Gatoclass. Referring to it as "fox hunting" is just wrong. It should be reworded, or at the very least, it should be unlinked. If you still feel there's consensus, I won't object further, but since you asked, I figured I should give my opinion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Mandarax: thanks for the feedback and sorry for not waiting for your reply before promoting it back. I think given the drama that has already taken place, and the rough consensus that had emerged, with yours and Gatoclass's objections noted, and the fact that you say you wo'nt object further, I'd prefer to just leave the hook to run and we can move on form this. As I said in the nom page, it's not perfect, but I think personally that "fox hunting where the foxes are the ones doing the hunting" is sufficiently stated that readers won't think it's actually real fox hunting. Thanks, and all the best — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
.JPG) |
A glass of Thandai for you | |
| Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Thanks for closing the RM request at Talk:Astana. I appreciate the explicit mention of a cooling time of 3 months, will help to save volunteer efforts on Wikipedia. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC) |
- @DBigXray: oh, thanks very much for the Thandai. That sounds delicious, I will enjoy it! (I should see if I can find a place locally where I can actually get some...) As for Astana, you're right. A lot of people assume we just blindly change the name as soon as it "officially" changes, but it's much better to wait and see per WP:NODEADLINE. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru -- I belatedly went back to errors and realised that you'd responded -- your ping didn't go through for some reason. I've responded there; in summary I'd support pulling, but I'm happy to leave the decision up to you. PS Are you now the formal PotD co-ordinator? It would be useful if the PotD page named someone to contact in case of emergencies when the image changes at midnight. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- If it gets pulled, it should be put up immediately for review of its featured status, just so we don't set a precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Yes, I will do that. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again -- Could you take a look at errors, please -- I've edited the caption as a stopgap, but the image doesn't even appear in the target article and a different target might be good. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Yes, I will do that. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You have Jules Massenet scheduled for May 12 but that article is also TFA, so you will want to pick something else for that day. —howcheng {chat} 16:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
My apologies...I was trying to view another page and hit the revert button by mistake. And sorry for not noticing earlier...I was AFK for several minutes. pbp 14:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: ah OK that makes sense, I've been there myself on occasion! Thanks for the message. — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite see the point of salting when it's another admin who recreates it. I'm not going to revert you, because I do not see the point of extending this to ANI. Please read what I have just written at User talk:Iridescent. And then consider whether it might have been better to simply try another AfD. Consider, if I do something deliberately opposite to what I usually do for the sake of compromise, whether my view might perhaps be the mroe reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DGG: thanks for the message, and I have seen your message at Iridescent's talk page. I sympathise with the need to have dialogue and try to come to a consensus, but on this issue the evidence from discussions both at Iridescent and at TonyBallioni's talk page there is no consensus that she has suddenly become notable over the past three weeks. The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) didn't just delete the second creation of the page, it salted it too, which means no more re-creations unless something changes and I would think either more time elapsed or an explicit decision by the previous AFD closer to permit a new version would be required for that. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
