User talk:Vanamonde93

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• 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).

Please can you help with some revdels?

Hi Vanamonde.

I saw that you revdeled some transphobic doxxing earlier on today and I was wondering if you would be kind enough to do the same again on the same article and on one other:

• This diff is on the same article as before and, while not quite so extravagant in its accusations this time, it still reveals what appears to be private information and baselessly insults the subject of the article.
• This diff (not from the same IP) is on another article about a trans woman and again reveals what appears to be private information. Going back in the history of that article the same private information has been added before, and not always revdeled, so it might be worth searching for older revisions adding the same claims and revdeling those too. I have no idea how much of a mission it would be to search through the old revisions. If the admin tools make it easy then I think it might be worth doing, if not then maybe not.

Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I've dealt with the two you posted here; there are no special admin tools for searching through old revisions, unfortunately, though I'd be happy to take care of anything that you find. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

OS

Yes, it should have been. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: No problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, 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. 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 (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Three years of adminship

Wishing Vanamonde93 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris troutman, much appreciated. Hard to believe, sometimes...Vanamonde (Talk) 23:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Requests for undeletion#2020 Democratic Party presidential rallies

Hey Vanamonde93, I have opened this discussion in an attempt to get access to some of the page's contents for an article I am writing. Just figured I'd give you a courtesy heads up, since you were the deleting admin. Thanks, Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, FTR. Feel free to ask me directly next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Koch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Koch. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Vanamonde93,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry I got mad at you over Pinochet in 2014.

CJK (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made many tens of thousands of edits since then, so while I remember that conversation, I had forgotten who it had taken place with. Apology accepted, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Rae-Venter

Hello! I think I have finished off all the requested changes to this article. If I missed anything, please let me know. It looks like there is an attempt underway to get a photo released under an appropriate license, so I deferred adding anything right now. I am happy to discuss if anything else is needed. Canada Hky (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

All wrapped up. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! Canada Hky (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK promotion intervals

Vanamonde, thanks again for changing the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates number from 86400 to 43200.

Back in August, with the backlog enormous, we had a long discussion on the DYK talk page and ultimately consensus determined that the best solution was to go from promoting one set to the main page to two sets a day, and the way to do that so the DYKUpdateBot runs twice a days rather than once is to change Time Between Updates from 86400 (86400 seconds, or 24 hours) to 43200 (43200 seconds, or 12 hours). This was done on August 12.

We've continued running at two sets per day for over a month now while the backlog has slowly decreased, but I was very surprised to discover a return to one a day—43200 back to 86400—had been done with no discussion within minutes of the suggestion being made, so I asked for a reversion, which was only resisted because Maile incorrectly thought there was a timing problem that prevented it. (There isn't. It's true it's a bad idea to go back from 12 hours to 24 hours when the most recent bot run was at midday, because then the subsequent changes are done at noon rather than midnight, and we're always supposed to have at least one change a day at midnight. But here, the most recent bot run was at midnight.) Hence my request to you, since Maile had finished editing for the day.

At some point in the next several days, it will be necessary to go back to one set per day because the number of approved hooks combined with the number of hooks in preps and queues will be too low, at which point we'll go back to 86400, but I'm guessing that won't be until Tuesday or even as late as Thursday or Friday if approvals pick up.

What's going to happen next is that DYKUpdateBot will run at 12:00 UTC, promote the latest queue to the main page and update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time from 2019-09-15T00:00:00Z to 2019-09-15T12:00:00Z during its run, and then the bot will wait around until it's 43200 seconds after 2019-09-15T12:00:00Z, at which point it runs again.

Sorry if this is too much detail, but I wanted to be sure you were comfortable with what I asked you to do, since you were willing to trust my word on it, something I very much appreciate. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: To be honest, I did know a lot of this, but I still appreciate the explanation, because now I have something to refer to if necessary; our documentation pages on this subject are quite difficult to follow, where they exist at all. I think what happened was that I misunderstood the intent; I thought you were trying to make sure the change to 1 set a day was made at the right time of day, whereas it was more a question of making sure it happened on the right day. Also; can we get you a mop, please? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing politics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing politics. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ursula le Guin

When you requested that this ran at TFA on the 90th anniversary of her birth, 21 October, I provisionally listed it because it looked near to promotion. However, it's still not promoted, and I see a new comment from Casliber today. Because of the way the FA bots work, I can't do the rest of the month beyond 20 October until this is scheduled, and I'm on holiday from 30 September for two weeks, so in practice if I can't list it in the next week, it probably won't run. I realise that will be disappointing, and I hope it doesn't happen, just forewarning you. @Dank:, @FAC coordinators: for info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Cas has supported already, meaning that it's at five supports + image review + source review. I'll ask the coords to review it for promotion soon, so if you could hold off for a day or two I'd greatly appreciate it...Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, as long as I can get the last ten days of October scheduled before I go away, that's OK. I posted the above partly to make you aware of the possibility, but also to try to get things moving along a bit. I've thanked Cas on my behalf too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: ...and promoted, thanks to a quick response from Laser brain. I've already looked over Dank's suggested blurb on the FAC talk, and I'm happy with it; let me know if you want me to do anything further to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start scheduling tomorrow, should finish over the weekend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Quite conducive to feedback

We now have our fifth arb (Opabinia) !voting to close the case and till now, there is zero attempt to minimally engage any dissent.

And, then they wonder (and write essays) about why people do not typically AGF, as to ArbCom. They deserve every bit of Fram's hyperbole. ∯WBG^converse 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that...If there's no response in the next few hours, I'll try to engage on their talk pages. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wish you luck but that's not how it happens. They don't engage on the PD t/p; we go their user t/p. They don't engage on their user t/p; we go their emails. They don't engage on their emails; we send pigeons to their homes or whatever the fuck.

And, I've left an explicit message on Katie's t/p; you can see the response for yourself. And emailed WTT; whose response was a civil version of Fuck You, Don't bother us. ∯WBG^converse 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to the email, but to be fair, they haven't been very active. I (still) have a lot of respect for (most) of those folks, but if they don't ever respond before the case closes, it's going to be raised at the election; four of those five are up for reelection this year. They may not run, of course, and after this year, I can hardly blame them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

And it is now being closed with zero engagement by arbitrators (except PMC-Marek conversation); your pings and invocation of Shakespeare seem to have not worked any :-( ∯WBG^converse 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abdali Medical Center

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdali Medical Center. 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. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If you do ...

I hadn't seen Cullen's reply in the "Jim" section, but I haven't been keeping a keen eye on my watchlist either. (I kind of went through it and cleaned house a while back and removed SOOOO many "watch" tabs. Anyway - if you DO decide to run, I'm pretty sure you'll have my support. I've seen a lot of your work that I have a great deal of appreciation for. And TY for the response.— Ched (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: Your vote of confidence is much appreciated; doubly so since it comes from one of the old guard, so to speak, whose thinking (if you'll forgive the generalization) I often seem to end up disagreeing with. I could say the same of you. I meant what I said to Tony, though; aside from not particularly wanting to, because it's a soul-crushing job and because I prefer to work on content, I am going to keep experiencing major fluctuations in available time, and unless there's a very serious dearth of candidates I'm going to stay out of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Me too thinks that you shall have a go but obviously, I have to respect your choice:-)

The committee needs to be rid of folks who have not written a decent sentence in the last five years and instead be filled with folks like you and Cas, with an integral connect to main-space. ∯WBG^converse 05:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

See, in principle, I agree; but if I were on ARBCOM, I suspect that I'd have to devote what time I have for Wikipedia entirely to it; which would mean I was no longer doing content work, which is time intensive. I'm honestly much happier spending my time doing stuff like this (promoted today); it keeps me motivated, and means that when I have to muck around at AfD or RFPP or AE or whatever, I can do it without getting horribly jaded. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Being inactive from content-writing whilst in tenure is understandable.

But, there used to be someone in the last Committee whose 50 main-space edits, went back to ~ six years. There are current arbitrators, who have written nothing worthy of mention, even when they were not arbitrators. ∯WBG^converse 05:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You'd have my support if you ever change your mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll even revive my pointless voter guide for this! --regentspark (comment) 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, RP, I can't say that doesn't tempt me, but then I read this and good sense reasserts itself. I'd support you. You've shoveled shit at AE for long enough to be good at it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Been there, done that. Plus, I'm a dilettante while you're the real deal! --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lot many vacant seats; you almost made it once and have my support if you choose to run, this time!

On an aside, I was thinking of Spiffy but he has fallen inactive for way too long ...... ∯WBG^converse 17:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps @Abecedare:. Though they've also been on again off again for a while. --regentspark (comment) 18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about, RP, you did better in those elections than very many respected folks; in one case you're a net 2% off the passing mark; and several people who were lower down the list than you went on to become successful arbitrators. I can see why you may want to be more active, though you've also done more editing than some that have been on past committees...Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ursula le Guin scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Ursula le Guin article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 21, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 21, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

Congratulations! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Vanamonde93,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

FAC?

Hi. I was wondering, which Guatemala articles have you brought to FAC? Thinker78 (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thinker78: 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, Operation PBFortune, and Operation PBHistory. A full list of articles I've made substantive content contributions to is on my user page. Why do you ask? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw that you submitted Castillo Armas for FAC and read your comment, so I was curious about the articles. Thinker78 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For extraordinary work in articles related to Guatemala and even getting Featured Article status for them.
		this WikiAward was given to Vanamonde93 by Thinker78 (talk) on 00:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 for the deserved barnstar. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here I go again...

...on my own seeking your advice.😁 I am confused, concerned and somewhat hesitant to openly express my views and that should not be happening in a venue where people are expected to openly express their views. I will admit that some of my concerns may be attributable to the residue of caution that lingers from my days as an NCHA judge with the power of the pen to mark a horse's performance as the winning run or deduct points from it for what appeared to be a penalty that occurred within seconds during that 2½ minute run. There was always the chance that it may not have been a penalty at all; but rather, an illusion created by the angle at which I was viewing the performance...iow, perspective. Only a review of the video would confirm if I had marked it correctly, and a review could only occur if my score was contested. Considering the amount of $$ that was at stake (typically 5 to 6 figures), contested scores were relatively common. I'm happy to say that the videos actually served to boost my confidence as a judge, and I eventually resigned with no black marks against me. With regards to how the latter relates to what I'm involved in today, let's just say I have an inkling of what goes on in the minds of admins who are determined to do the right thing, and as you already know, I have the utmost respect for you and Tony, and greatly value your opinions. My biggest concern at the moment is over the path some editors have chosen when responding to the POV of editors with whom they oppose - after all, their iVotes greatly effect the outcome.

The beehive reaction at the dramah boards is even more disconcerting, especially in cases of wrongthink. Vendettas and attempts to rid oneself of political opposition often materializes under separate cover making it harder to detect - and I may be mistaken, but there appears to be political bent present which tends to distract from and lessen the importance of the actual issue. Regardless of the motivation, there is a fervor at ANI that makes this cowgirl think back to the Old West and Judge Roy Bean. ^{No, I wasn't there - I read about it. 😁} I am also a bit concerned that the reaction to being offended has become the focus instead of it being on who made the offensive comment (which was rather insensitive), as well as the position that if I didn't find it offensive, you shouldn't, either; the latter being pure POV. If making offensive statements (perceived or otherwise) is protected speech on WP, then being offended by them should be equally protected, regardless of the topic. There are some parallels to the antisemitism discussion at ANI which are driving my overall concerns, the most important being the potential rise in thought police, wrongthink and actions against an editor for their personal POV. I can't help but wonder how the allegations of racism will be handled at AP2 after the ANI case is closed. Allegations of racism at AP2 are not difficult to find, most of which are not supported by anything but opinions based on guilt by association. If saying someone quoted an antisemitic statement is the same as accusing them of being antisemitic, the same should apply to similar statements about racism. True or false? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this, but I'm going to deal with more urgent things and then get back to you when I've had a chance to look into it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

LeLe XO article

LeLe XO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since you deleted this article, you seem an appropriate person to ask. There is an edit in the history by an IP that attempts (and fails miserably, choosing a different continent) to out me. Would it be possible for you to provide me with a diff link to this edit please? Also could you confirm what the edit summary was as well? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@FDW777: That's a very unusual request...I can't provide you with a diff without undeleting the article, and I can't do that simply to provide you with a diff. If the identity the IP is ascribing to you is fictitious, as you say, why are more details necessary? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not need the article undeleting, is it not possible to provide me with a link that would be accessible to administrators only? I believe the name used was Tim Miner (although I admit I didn't pay too much attention as it clearly wasn't my identity), a person who LeLeXo has a lawsuit against. They also appear to be bringing that dispute to Wikipedia (the IP's other edit makes it clear it is the same editor from the LeLeXo article), so I would like to make a report on the COI noticeboard, and potentially escalate to ANI if the dispute continues. FDW777 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't see much problem with an admin-only link because any admin can view the page history anyway; [1], [2], [3]. The name used, however, was not Tim Miner. It's quite possible it's another person LeLeXO has a lawsuit against. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

1987 Mecca incident

It is needed to remove some material from this article. For example, the background section is too long as well as most of the article is background instead of the event! Or the first paragraph of the background has nothing to do with that incident (just compare years) and.... All in all, I have to pick some material (as well as add some others) to clean up the article. What should I do while there is no active user in the page to respond in TP (I started to discuss the mentioned issue in TP)?Saff V. (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Describe your proposed changes on the talk page. If no one objects or responds, go ahead and make the change. If you're reverted, discuss the edit with whoever reverted you. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your political posts

Couldn't help but notice that almost all of your negative political posts revolve around smearing the US.

Don't you think its a bit inappropriate for an admin to behave in such a biased manner?

If you are interested in such topics, why exclusively post about the US while ignoring the far worse crimes committed by opponents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B015:2D96:9988:249D:F42A:E590 (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If you actually read through stuff that I've written on Wikipedia, you'd notice that I've written about political history in any number of countries, and that has involved documenting things done by a lot of different governments that historians have subsequently criticized. If the US is a frequent player in this, it's because the US has had a disproportionate influence in those parts of the globe that I have an interest in. Also, coming here to call me names isn't going to help your case on the Guatemalan coup. That article has been through our highest level of peer review; edit-warring to change the wording of the lead isn't going to work, you need to establish consensus for your changes on the talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Robert Hunter (lyricist)

On 25 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Hunter (lyricist), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Vanamonde--if you don't mind, can you remove that question? I don't know if an answer would change anyone's mind; in addition, it either pretty much dictates how the candidate will have to answer, or it will be just another opportunity to shine the light on someone who is not running for admin, and their poorly-hidden alternative account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well...Without a response from Fram, I'd have to oppose over it; but I hate opposing over something that the candidate has not had a chance to reflect upon. I don't think it's likely that Fram will say "look, I fucked up"; but he should be given the opportunity to do so, no? Surely the question can't highlight anything that isn't in your oppose? How would you feel if I asked "would you have approached questioning candidates in the 2018 elections differently", and not make any reference to you? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you seem to have logged off for the moment, I've removed my question pending a response here. I take your concern seriously, truly I do, but I don't think I've opposed a genuine candidate in the past few years without asking them about the thing that was concerning (or anything that concerned me that they hadn't yet had a chance to answer). It just doesn't sit well. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand; this is something reasonable people can disagree over. Thanks for entertaining my question: I appreciate it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boris Johnson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hook recycling?

Just curious what this is about? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: The widths of the various sections on the main page are fixed. Their lengths vary. As a result, there is often blank space under either OTD or DYK (more often under DYK, at the moment, though that's not always been the case historically). Adding an old hook (or hooks) to fill that whitespace has been the usual way to deal with it. There are alternatives, of course, but I'm not bothered by the current practice enough to want to change it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So, the, um, bottom line is that I made the front page again? Cool! -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much :) Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

what?

This seems incredibly unhelpful. If it matters not where the issue arises, "quoting him doesn't help"? I don't get that at all. Quoting me does help because it identifies the issues that arise every day and I'm precluded from doing anything about. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but be careful with your language. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: You're misunderstanding me. If Amakuru agrees with your assessment of the issue, he should raise it as something that concerns him. If he doesn't, he could ask for a second opinion at WT:DYK; but in either case, simply saying "TRM spotted this, please do something about it" without making it clear where he stands on the matter isn't helpful, because it is proxying, and because we can't engage you in conversation at WT:DYK. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, where was the Arbcom ruling on such "proxying"? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There isn't one, and there doesn't have to be one. WP:PROXYING is policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you're wrong, the "policy" states clearly that this is prohibited unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive, so I suggest you stop making claims to the contrary. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have said nothing to the contrary; please read what I wrote more carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong. There's nothing to do with PROXYing here. You should steer clear of making things up. Be CLEAR with your words. Not for me, but for others who dote on your words here. They are easily confused. To be clear: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG AT ALL WITH SOMEONE USING MY EXACT WORDS WHEN MAKING AN ERROR REPORT ANYWHERE ON WIKIPEDIA. Correct? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. It has nothing to do with the words they use. It has everything to do with whether they take responsibility for the post. Typing with capslock on doesn't change that. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's not written in the "policy". You are wrong, 100% and it's disappointing because although we've had our disagreements, you always seemed to be on the side of making the Wikipedia more enriched. Your current course is contrary to that. And even if you actually believe what you're saying, you really need to check it again. This is fucking absurd stuff. Do you really think I'm here to make bad for the Wikipedia? Sad news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

At this point, you're just yelling, and continually misinterpreting what I wrote. For the record, I haven't said Amakuru violated the policy on proxying; I said "If he did X, it would violate the policy, therefore he shouldn't do X". I stand by that. If you want to engage with this rationally some other time, I'm all ears; until then, I have some reviews and articles to attend to. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not yelling. I'm just sick of your pseudo-grandeur. You're wrong about the proxying. You're right about my forgetfulness. You're wrong about everything else because I'm sure you realise all I'm doing is trying to fix the shit that various processes pass to the main page. Your accusations about Amakuru are sickening. Go and do something else and leave the rest to us. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made no accusations about Amakuru, as you might realize if you were less interested in proving me wrong. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind warnings when I forgot that trying to fix issues on the main page was a crime specific to me, but otherwise, please limit your other threats to real policy. You're an admin for the moment and you should know better. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made no threats either. Drop it, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your accusations of violation of PROXY is enough. I'm not dropping that until you retract it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And, to be clear, if someone copies my concerns from WP:TRM to WP:ERRORS, are you now saying that is considered a violation of WP:PROXY which deals with banned or blocked users? If it's not clear, please start a thread at WP:ARCA. It would be most interesting to see how people deal with the fact that I'm simply reporting issues on the main page yet those reports can't be repeated verbatim. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot retract an accusation I did not make. Please provide diffs of an actual accusation, as opposed to discussions of hypothetical actions. I have never said your report cannot be repeated verbatim; please provide diffs of that, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)