User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Vanamonde93. 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 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

I truly enjoyed working with you on Vera Gedroits and appreciated your thorough review. I am wondering if you have time or interest to review Acuña. Usually my foreign articles sit for a long time at GA review. The last Latina was there for 9 months. If you neither have time nor interest, no worries. :) SusunW (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: Happy to review it, but between RL commitments and other ongoing stuff on Wikipedia it might take me till early next week. If I don't start on it by Wednesday the 3rd feel free to remind me. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A week is totally awesome! Thank you :) SusunW (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A gentle nudge, but I totally understand if you are tied up with other commitments. SusunW (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thanks, it had slipped my mind. On it. Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Not pushing you at all, in fact the opposite, it is my wedding anniversary weekend, so it'd be cool if you could wait for a few more days to start the review of this. I should be back in pocket by Thursday or Friday. Thanks :) SusunW (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: I appreciate that, this week has been rather busy in RL; I haven't actually edited any of the things on my content-related to-do list, which I only open if I'm confident I can spend at least an uninterrupted hour on Wikipedia. Things might be better this week; if I get to it before you're free, no worries, you can take your time responding. Happy anniversary :) Vanamonde (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! 35 years tomorrow ;) SusunW (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. That was a rather heavy backlog. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Sure thing. You caught me at the right time, just as I was online with a half hour to spare. I wonder if you would take a look at the RFPP request for Oliver North: my note there explains why. Vanamonde (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. This has been going on for years. Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you have 3 bios in the row at the bottom of the set. We try to alternate bios and non-bios. Perhaps move up Abhilasha Kumari one line, and swap Renee Rabinowitz with The Hate U Give from Prep 2. That will also keep the U.S.-based hooks to 50% of the set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I was considering swapping something for Abhilasha Kumari before I was called away, but yours is a more elegant solution. I will do that now. Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I spoke too soon. The Hate U Give hook is a special occasion hook. I've swapped the Pacific guyot one in instead. Vanamonde (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks great now. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Judging by the number of editors who have edited this article while on the main page (excluding the vandal), and the tweaks that have been made to both the article and the hook by administrator Floquenbeam after reports at WP:ERRORS, this article was rushed to print long before it was ready. It really didn't have to go up as a special occasion hook considering the condition it was in (and still is). A little frustrating for those of us at DYK who try to promote articles that will stand up to main-page scrutiny. Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Yeah, you're probably right. It's one of those situations where no single aspect was in violation of the rules, but taken together, the whole thing wasn't up to the mark, and we should probably have held it back. Vanamonde (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brett Kavanaugh. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marital rape. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. I just wanted to offer my thanks for your comments over at the National Front FAC. The FAC was closed before I had had the chance to respond to all of your comments (especially those about trimming back the article length, which is a very valid point). I will work on your suggestions over the next few weeks and/or months before re-submitting the article to FAC. Once again, I appreciate you taking the time to look at the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: My pleasure: it was a very educational read, my comments about length notwithstanding. I did not realize it was that close to being archived, but the folks commenting all seem like people who would revisit this when you try again. The article is certainly very close to being of FA quality. Vanamonde (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, appreciate your insight on my edit. Would you consider the first printed version of an ebook ("The Daughter of Odren") as well as new illustrations done in extensive collaboration with the author ^[1] (nb. Tor is owned by Macmillan, and the new book is from Simon & Schuster, very much not the same company) as sufficient to include the new collection in the list? I understand your point regarding noting the inclusion of previously printed work, and the danger of noting new printings of existing material. Certain collections like the Library of America collections seem to be more significant due their explicit curation, but still somewhere between clearly yes and clearly no, according to the definition you provided. 97.115.146.107 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good source. It's still not 100% cut and dried, but yes, I'd say we can include the new collection on the basis of that story. We'd need to include the source you just gave as a reference, of course. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but please feel free to add it yourself. Vanamonde (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Please review the proposed newsletter in my Sandbox1]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Looks good to me. A minor point: the signup link for next year is still red. Shall we create that page, or just add a parenthetical "going live soon"? Also: apologies for not approving that many submissions: I found that what time I could spare for Wikicup reviewing was better spent checking submissions. I do have to say that whether it was because the contestants were different or for some other reason, I was happier with the average items in the earlier rounds than I was last year. Vanamonde (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I will create the page before circulating the newsletter. I agree that the quality was better this year and we did not have any dramas or difficult decisions to make. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Thanks for your willingness to mentor me to learn more skills. JogiAsad  ^Talk 12:22 pm, 21 November 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−6)

@JogiAsad: I'm afraid this is exactly what I meant when I said your English was not good enough to participate in most discussions. I explicitly said I was not willing to mentor you; not because I have any hard feelings, but because I'm too busy. And you've misunderstood me completely. Do you see the problem? Vanamonde (talk) 2:09 pm, 21 November 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−6)

Okay, sorry for that I am taking back this kitten..JogiAsad  ^Talk 4:40 pm, 21 November 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−6)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

Please don't accuse people of wheel warring when no such thing happened. At DYK, only one revert happened (my action), and no one did a second revert, which would have been wheel warring. User:Renata3 edited in her own preference without consensus, which is technically a misuse of the admin tools, but she did so with the best intentions (not for the right reasons initially, but that's a mistake, not a crime). My revert is not wheel warring, if someone else had reverted me, that would have been wheel warring. User:Mike Peel's removal of the hook also wasn't wheel warring (or any other form of admin tool abuse), it was not a rerevert of my (or any other) action, and by then it was very obvious that the hook was very contentious, and removing contentious hooks from the main page is usually a good thing (if there are, like here, good faith concerns: of course not all "contention" should be honoured in this way, e.g. people offended by a fringe theory being presented on the main page as a fringe theory and not as a valable alternative may be upset, but that's not a reason to pull such a hook).

If Renata3 had simply removed the hook, most of the ensuing problems wouldn't have happened. She would still have received flak (since removing hooks which aren't factually wrong and where there is no consensus for the removal is not really appreciated in most cases, admins don't have the right to impose their personal preference out of process over the preferences of multiple other editors who did follow process), but a lot less than now, where she not only disagreed with the agreed upon hook, but instead imposed her own hook which hadn't seen the scrutiny (for factual errors and so on) which other hooks need to get before they can get on the main page (even though said scrutiny is too often laughable, it still is better than none at all). Coupled with the errors in her reasoning for doing so, and you get all the brouhaha that happened here (well, we might have had brouhaha without her interfering of course, the hook in itself is obviously also responsible for the whole discussion). No consensus could be found over the next few hours, until the partisan Women in Red project was canvassed, which helped to establish a consensus against the hook (never mind that a consensus achieved by canvassing is not an acceptable way to proceed either). All in all, it was a trainwreck from start to finish, and people barging in with false claims of wheel warring didn't help to find a resolution or to calm down things at all. Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fram, please read what I wrote carefully: I did not say you were wheel-warring, I said your actions and Mike Peel's were questionable. That's a far cry from saying they were wrong. You and Mike Peel both modified somewhat contentious admin actions. I would not have done what either of you did; but I have not intentions of dragging anyone to ARBCOM over it. My comment was also specifically made after Mike Peel had been accused of wheel-warring, an accusation that was later repeated, more than once [1]. I was simply pointing out that if someone were to challenge Mike's edit on wheel-warring grounds, then they should challenge yours on similar grounds. Despite the fact that it was TRM who made explicit accusations of wheel-warring, I do not see you correcting his notions about it; why? I also said that the best thing for Renata3 to have done was to have simply pulled the hook; so we're in agreement there, even if we cannot agree on how inappropriate the hook was in the first place. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you did say that the "questionable" nature was specifically because "These last two edits are both questionable from a WP:WHEEL perspective". And I only replied to you because you pinged me (which isn't a bad thing of course), I didn't follow the whole discussion otherwise because too much what happened and was said there left a bad taste (coming from multiple sides). Anyway, like I said above, I don't believe at all that Mike Peel was wheel warring, he judged the discussion and did the right thing (no matter if the discussion itself reached the right or wrong decision). I have clashed with Mike Peel in the past, and have no trouble taking admins to account when they make mistakes (or worse), but I really can't find a problem with his action here.

As for how inappropriate or not the hook was: I try not to judge these things, as otherwise I would pull a lot more DYK hooks. Normally, I only pull when they are factually incorrect (which is often enough). I do recall one extremely insensitive hook which I pulled for that reason, although I don't remember now whether I did it immediately or after discussion. That was this one, which I hope you will agree was a few degrees worse than the one under dispute now. I don't think I have actually expressed any opinion on the one uder dispute. It should at best have been put in the quirky spot, not the first spot, but preferably our hooks should focus on the actual achievements of people, not on the clickbait aspect. I don't agree though that insults are not allowed on DYK, or that insults against a woman should be treated differently from insults against a man. But they should serve a function beyond clickbait. Just one of many problems with DYK...

In any case, thanks for your reply, it cleared things up a bit. I have no intentions of taking this any further, nothing that happened there was bad enough IMO to keep going on about it, but of course if you have anything to ask me about this, feel free! Fram (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: (Sorry, this is long, and mostly about other things you mentioned: please take your time) Well, I meant "These last two edits are both questionable from a WP:WHEEL perspective" specifically in response to the notion that Mike was wheel-warring and you were not: I think you will agree that if Mike was wheel-warring (and I'm not saying he was) then you must have been too: on the other hand, if your actions were okay, then so were his. But this isn't the place to hash out my problems with TRM's approach (or really, the approach of several folks who took sides in that fracas): I think you and Mike Peel were both trying to make the best of a very messy situation, and though I may have disagreed with specific actions, I cannot fault your intentions overall.

The problems at DYK are...complex. Wikipedia has the basic problem of being unable to make a reviewer do a proper review: review quality depends a lot on the reviewer, and a fair bit on luck. To be honest I think there's an about equal chance of a glaring error slipping through any review conducted by a reasonably experienced editor. The resulting error rate of any process is simply a function of the volume of content and the number of times a specific article gets looked at: DYK has the lowest reviewer/content ratio, and thus a high error rate overall. I say this after participating in the Wikicup last year and judging it this year, and seeing articles with basic policy failures pass literally every content review process we have (including FAC, though the problems there are mitigating by having a corps of dedicated and competent reviewers). All of which is to say: I think we have a lot to do on the quality control side, I think we're capable of making fixes if we're able to discuss the issues collaboratively, and while some folks at DYK have taken issue with your approach, I have yet to find a hook which you pulled in error, and I appreciate the effort you (and others) put in to check them.

With respect to this specific hook: I'm not specifically against insults at DYK; many insults are more funny than insulting, and many are worn as a badge of pride by the insultee. I described this issue as one of misogyny because there is an unfortunate history of critics using women's sexuality to belittle them in a way that there just isn't for men. But reasonable people can disagree about that. Thanks for talking through this. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi--wondering if you had some time to read Biography (TV series) and give me a few words of feedback re: areas to improve? Thank you in advance. Levivich (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the manual update. FYI for tagging articles with DYK talk, you can use the "tag" button in queue preview page (the same way as doing credits). Everything else look fine otherwise! Don't feel compelled to do manual update everyday if the bot stays down for a while. I am usually around this time also, so is Gatoclass I think. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: That's useful, thanks. It would save some time. I was free today, and so I went ahead and did it; during the week I tend to be busier. Let's hope the bot comes back online soon. Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear sir I was just wondering if you can help I run the bros fan club and have followed the band since 1987, I had major issues with NRQ9 (wiki member)from Australia they know nothing about bros but target this specific pages, they also remove sourced ref content which I have got from magazines, official products, books etc which I own as I have been a collector of bros the band for 30 years and I NRQ9 needs to be made aware they cant run or try to own page or feel they can bully new members, how can I report this as I noticed the bros page has been locked which I feel is unfair on those who have sourced content to share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.7.137 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources supporting the content you wish to add, bring those sources to the talk page of the article, and get WP:CONSENSUS for that content. I have protected the article, so this is a good time for you to do that. Also, you need to stop being rude. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by this troll. See this page for an extensive history of their vandalising of Bros-related pages (among other things), using multiple accounts and IP addresses, dating back over two years.Nqr9 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nqr9: Now that I've had a chance to look at the SPI, yes, it's fairly obvious. I'm not going to bother blocking this IP since the vandal is hopping. Vanamonde (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear sir the abuse I get from NRQ9 is awful, they also use secondary accounts, I am new wiki and the information I use is from publication going back 1987 how do reference the source, for example ( I use the article name date and company of who published the article, I believe that sufficient as not all information is on then internet). I would real appreciate your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.65.6 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that you are evading a block. If you want to have any chance of changing content, stay away from Wikipedia for six months, and then file an unblock request with your original account. Socking is both disruptive to us and useless to you. Vanamonde (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

you receive any echo-notification from me, a few days back? ∯WBG^converse 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Not in the last ten days, no...Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm......The precise period was the first week of November, though:-) ∯WBG^converse 19:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Afraid not: I've an email from you in that week (to which I've replied): nothing else in November besides today's messages. Vanamonde (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Replied?! That was the precise point:-) Gmail seems to have dropped it; for the last mail from your end is at 8th August. ∯WBG^converse 08:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange: I replied very soon after you sent it (a brief reply, I'll send a longer one later). I've forwarded my reply to the only address I have for you. Let's see if this works. Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, recieved:-) ∯WBG^converse 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw your block on user:Empress Jodha Begum. I have stumbled upon another editor making similar edits.[2][3] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Oh good grief. Yes, I've blocked. They slipped under the radar this time, but it's very obviously the same user, and while their edits in a couple of places would look reasonable in isolation, coupled with the very obvious hoaxing elsewhere and the offensive material last time, I don't see how we can trust a word they write, so I've reverted the bunch. Vanamonde (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Vanamonde. I thought their editing looked familiar, but I had to do some digging till I found a clue. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here, Mariam Uz Zamani Jodha Bai Begum, making the same edits as Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum. Sock? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Blocked. I'm going to file an SPI, since I think there's a fair chance of sleepers: also, I think it's best if the CUs have a record of persistent socking. Vanamonde (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Another sock? User:Reyaadi. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...blocked and tagged. This is getting rather tiresome, especially as it seems as though they're not trying to be disruptive, but are being so simply through a lack of competence at this point. Vanamonde (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde,

I would deeply appreciate it if you could restore Jeff Oster's page and give me a chance to remedy the problems you found with it.

Jeff is a very legitimate artist and is likely to be up for a Grammy award with the group FLOW.

As such, he deserved to be documented in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAMusicologist (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAMusicologist: A few things you should think about: first, articles on Wikipedia are not rewards for achievement. The subject of any article needs to be notable. I deleted Jeff Oster following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Oster. There was consensus there that Oster was not notable: as such, I cannot simply reverse the deletion. Also: individuals may become notable over time, but I would like to see evidence that you have new information in the form of reliable sources about the subject before I give you a copy of this to work on as a draft (which I'm willing to consider doing). Finally, your account seems new, but you knew that Jeff Oster had been deleted: have you edited with a different account before? Vanamonde (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I follow the group FLOW, which as some notable artists in Fiona Joy and William Ackerman, the founder of Windham Hill Records (and virtually founded the New Age movement).

I have a collection of reliable sources on Jeff.

I've also recovered his deleted Wikipedia article from some website that tracks deleted articles. I'm happy to cut and paste that in, but, honestly, I'm thinking about starting over with the sources I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAMusicologist (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAMusicologist: Please do not copy-paste from those other locations: the copyright status of those sites is unclear. I am willing to give you a copy of the deleted article, which also has the advantage of preserving the history of the page; just please give me an example of the sources you have, so I know we're not going to be back here in a few weeks. Vanamonde (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd welcome a copy from you then, for reference.

Thanks!

Can you put it here? Do you need an email address?

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAMusicologist (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAMusicologist: I do not need an email address: I do want to see (or see a link to) one of the reliable sources you say you have. Vanamonde (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's try this again. I put three references here yesterday and for some reason they aren't here now.

https://www.allmusic.com/album/true-mw0000585617 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yvqaem/vice-exclusive-can-we-all-please-calm-down-and-just-listen-to-some-new-age-jazz-for-once-420 http://www.ambientvisions.com/jeffoster.htm https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/17599/saturn-calling-by-jeff-oster/ http://contemporaryfusionreviews.com/masterful-pertinent-contemporary-fusion-jeff-oster-reach/ https://www.jazzmonthly.com/jeff-oster-reach/ MAMusicologist (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAMusicologis: I've moved a copy to User:MAMusicologist/Jeff Oster. Have at it. Feel free to contact me with further questions, though it may be a couple of days before I respond. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! For some reason I didn't get notified of this via email, and so I decided to rewrite it from the ground up. Please have a look at it and let me know what you think. I think it is much better cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Oster — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAMusicologist (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAMusicologist: That's quite odd that you didn't get a notification. I'm afraid I'm too busy to do a full review, but a few quick points; you should avoid excessive quotation, as it creates a copyright problem even when appropriately cited. The "Continuing musical career" can really afford to lose some quotes. There's also some detail that is excessive (the "Deepak Chopra" section could be trimmed to a sentence, for instance) to the point where someone might consider it promotional. You've certainly fixed the sourcing problem, though. Considering all of this, I have to ask: how did you come across this topic? Are you affiliated with Oster in any way? Vanamonde (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Great comments. I was worried about the length of some of those. (I was doing some social media tracking for my real time job about five years ago and the attorneys always said less than 300 characters and less than that is better.)

As far as how I came to Jeff: a number if years ago I found out Ackerman was back in business after his apparent non-compete expired with Sony. Oster was new to his "troupe" (discovered him listening to Music Choice).

I did get this notification, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAMusicologist (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. In general it's a decent piece, I'd just recommend pruning detail that might seem promotional. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct I was my mistake it wasn't vandalism it was a personal attack. It was not a warning, a warning is issued when someone is violating policy. Please review the history I reverted Inspire Brands three times over a 4 day-period once on November 24, diff, once on the 27th diff, and I removed a speedy on the 28th. Given the sources a speedy should not apply given the AfD was redirect not delete, however I responded instead on the talk page after being questioned. The 28th at 00:02 was the last edit I made on the page. This is not edit warring three reverts over a period of 4 days is not edit warring you and I both know this. SportsFan007 also supported by edits. It was later discovered that SportsFan007 and Shusu have a history. Out of nowhere I was warned for edit warring, no such thing has occurred, also Shusu and SportsFan007 was involved but only I received the warning. After Serial Number 54129 jump in I took the discussion to DRV, the proper channel.

I've been around long enough that any question toward must be true and respectful. Since was are both very experienced we can tell when a warning is issued for the sole purpose of hindering discussion, vs actual disruptive behavior. For the record I have never edit warred, review my history. And in case there is any misunderstanding, the first thing I did was check to see if fellow editors involved were also warned, when I saw there weren't I released this was personal. FWIW Shusu revert 5 times in that period but received no warning. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple of points, Valoem. First, it's possible to edit-war without breaking WP:3RR. What was happening at that page was an edit-war, and you were participating in it, regardless of whether you actually made enough reverts to be blocked for it. So the warning you got was not wrong as such. It was a templated warning, which is rarely helpful, so in that respect I can understand you were not too happy about it; but it wasn't a personal attack. Second, I left Spshu a stern warning, and I would have blocked them if I hadn't seen the report so late. So they are definitely not getting off the hook, either. If you feel SerialNumber isn't treating you fairly, that's something you should raise with them, or at ANI; but the situation isn't going to be helped by describing a templated warning as "vandalism". Anyhow, if this dispute continues, an RFC might be the best way to go forward, as I've protected the page. Vanamonde (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you being neutral. If Shusu had received a warning as well, I would not have been as irritated. My apologies for say it was vandalism it was more of an attack not vandalism. But I have no hard feeling and just hope DRV can allow editors to work on a multibillion dollar company. Frankly having to open the DRV seems like a waste of time, but I guess I have no choice here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Irritation is entirely understandable, but some ways of expressing irritation just lead to further trouble. I don't have strong opinions on the DRV, but I hope a consensus is reached that everyone involved can respect. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the meme around ligma seems to have died down, so what do you think of lowering a year of semi to six months of PC? Understandable if you'd prefer not to; just food for thought. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Willing to give it a shot; I've set the semi to expire in a week, and the PC to continue more or less till the semi had been set for. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

Hi! Some time ago my page was deleted. Recently, I've made some changes in the article. Can you please advise me what to do in order to publish it? What to add or what corrections to make? Thank you in advance and will be waiting for your response. Fair Expert (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fair Expert: The page was deleted because it was distinctly promotional in tone. To avoid that problem, you should base the content on intellectually independent reliable sources, and in particular avoid sourcing material to people involved with the group. Also, I would recommend you use the WP:AFC process when you are ready, as you will get more feedback on your draft that way. Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, are you aware that the Holocaust is a singular event and is always capitalized in reference to the WWII Nazi murder of Jews? Please correct this. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I was trying to fix the grammar in the original hook, which was a mess; but thanks for pointing it out. Yes, I am aware of that, but I neglected to notice it in this case. Fixed (it's in the queue now, BTW). Vanamonde (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have also mentioned that you did a stellar job fixing up the grammar in that hook. I'm a professional editor, but every time I looked at it, I was stumped about how to fix it. Thanks for all your hard work! Yoninah (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Vanamonde (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. Could you have a look at the two edits from the IP on the talk page please? I've removed it from view; it's essentially the same thing.. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Removed, thanks for pointing it out. Vanamonde (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just reverted another message on the talk page. Nzd (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Unfortunately, they seem to be able to switch IPs at will; if it happens one more time you may have to request protection of the talk page, even though we do that quite rarely. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Nzd (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, I would like to ask your opinion on the following issue: Recently I noticed that an anonymous user modified a data in the infobox of the article Vanessa Kraven, a source was present specifically for that data thus I checked it and I changed that data accordingly. A few days later I noticed that that data had been changed again by another IP that incidentally was already present in the chronology of the article. I reviewed the last contributions and found that all the edits since October 27th were focused on infobox data repeatedly changing them randomly. So I restored the data according to the source but a few days later the anonymous user changed it again. I refrained from modifying it once again as I do not want to get involved in edit wars. In any case I would like to know how to behave in cases like this (apart from warning an administator). Thanks in advance. PS: I also checked the contributions of the IP in other wiki-projects and found that it is blocked on it.wiki exactly for the same reason: entering false data (height, weight, etc.). Horst Hof (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Horst Hof: Changing that sort of detail is an unfortunately common form of vandalism, and even if occasionally done in good faith, it's disruptive. The best thing to do is to warn the editor about unsourced content when you revert them, and to report them to AIV if they do not stop and/or engage on the talk page. In this case, I've warned the user; it's okay to revert them one more time (across all the pages where they've made such edits). Vanamonde (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. In spite of your warning, the same IP now has changed the weight also. I'm going to restore the data stated in the source once again. In case of further disruption I will report it to AIV as you suggested. Thanks again. Horst Hof (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Horst Hof: I've given them a final warning. If they repeat the edit, feel free to let me know, although if I'm not online you'll get a faster response at AIV. Please do remember to leave warnings; most admins (including me) are not happy blocking someone for something they haven't ignored a warning about. Vanamonde (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Thanks a lot. Horst Hof (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He/she corrupted again a handful of articles yesteday (Vanessa Kraven, Nia Jax, Isis the Amazon...). I restored sourced data once again and warned the anonymous user on IP's talk page as you suggested. This time he/she used another IP address (82.58.195.153), for that reason I was wondering if a report on SPI was more appropriate, but I see that rarely IP are reported there. Horst Hof (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's rarely much use reporting IPs. SPI is basically for investigating connections between editors that are not immediately obvious; in this case, it is obvious, and the question is what to do about it. The IPs are from different ranges, and a range-block won't do any good. I've protected two of those pages; if the IP ignores the warning, or a different one appears elsewhere, we can look at protecting more pages or blocking the IP. I would block the second IP right now, except that it hasn't edited in more than 12 hours. Vanamonde (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If that's not happening, I would concur with Gatoclass, and ask that you replace "general competence" with "competence" in the previous remedy. - Vanamonde.

I'm not sure if you realize the "previous remedy" is being retained per the current proposed amendment. This means that he could still excoriate users for "specific incompetencies" unrelated to DYK. That's why I proposed the removal of the word "general". In short, whatever specific remedies are applied to the DYK area, the "general" qualifier stills needs to go. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Oh, I know it's being retained. I'm suggesting that TRM be restricted from commenting about other editors at ERRORS and his errors pages; if that suggestion isn't happening, then "general" needs to be dropped. If that suggestion is adopted, I think we can remove the present restriction altogether, because I don't see a need to prevent him from challenging editor behavior at legitimate venues, just to stop the constant barrage of disparagement in edit-summaries and error reports. Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from. But while DYK appears to be the main trigger, I see no reason why other users, or indeed DYK contributors in other venues, should be left with no means of redress. That's why I think the remedy needs to remain broader than just DYK, and why I think the word "general" has to go from the broader remedy as currently expressed. Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I agree that it's not limited to DYK; "comments about other editors" would apply to everybody, since there really isn't such a thing as a DYK admin, no matter what TRM might say. Vanamonde (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the phrase you actually used was "Simply restrict him ... from commenting about other editors at WP:ERRORS or his own errors page". My point is that I don't believe such a remedy is broad enough. Gatoclass (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: perhaps; but with WT:DYK, ERRORS, and his errors page would cover a good 95%; and if we eliminated the other remedy, we'd really be simplifying all our lives, I think. But I take your point; let's see what ARBCOM has to say about it. Vanamonde (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ready for you to review and promote. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks; I've given the hook a tweak, take a look, if you would. Vanamonde (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. I wasn't sure how to word it nicely; I'll change it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate your spirit for serving wikipedia for such a long time. About the edit you reverted, I think you misunderstood what I actually wanted to say. The source given in the page is a huff-post which says that many deaths were caused by demonetization. Actually, the way the article has been written at that place seems to introduce a deliberate bias in the mind of a new reader, leaving no space for personal opinion or thought. If some policy is depicted to have caused deaths, it forms a general impression of disgust. When vaccines were introduced, do you think there were no test deaths? But is it wri tten so prominently that it alters the entire image of the process from good to bad? The Forbes article argues in a similar fashion: whether the 100 deaths accounted to demonetization are so much to ponder that they should undermine the reformatory cause it carries? Throughout the paragraph, demonetization has been portrayed as evil and no effort to reflect the economic help it has provided, has been made. The paragraph appears to be written by someone who wants to impose the ideology that the reform is fundamentally detrimental and the government is a fool.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/08/indias-demonetisation-kills-100-people-apparently-this-is-not-an-important-number/ Srdtheking (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

And of course even on a experience basis the above Forbes article from a genuine author is far more reliable than a huff post with who knows who, unnamed writers. Srdtheking (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• an Srdtheking (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean I mistakenly used "a" instead of "an" before experience. Srdtheking (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Srdtheking: You're entitled to your opinions about demonetization, but how it is presented in the article is constrained by our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. We have present what reliable sources say about the subject. A number of such sources make the link between demonetization and the reported deaths; so we have to do the same. You cannot use Worstall to argue against that, because his article is basically saying it's not a big deal to kill a 100 people; he isn't saying demonetization did not cause the deaths, and so using this source to add "allegedly" to the article is actually original research, which is forbidden. That opinion is also wildly undue weight for the article about Modi. If that's an opinion you wish to add to the article about demonetization, you could open a discussion on that talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! So you basically mean that if I'm able to draft a better paragraph in a neutral disposition while maintaining citations from independent intellectual resources, I have the complete liberty to include such opinions in the article. Thank you once again. But, please remember it isn't the contributor who decides the weight of particular sections of someone's work on his profile but it's the social order and the reader's reviews which help to do so. At this time the entire government seems to lose the next elections partly due to unsupported arguments on demonetization cited from Wikipedia which doesn't mention any of its benefits. So yes, it does impact Modi and that too pretty heavily.

Thanks for giving your time. Have a nice day/night. Srdtheking (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Srdtheking: Nobody is at "complete liberty" to include anything; you are bound by consensus, particularly on an article that has gone through a peer review process, as this one has. You are free to add something, but if someone reverts you, as is possible, then you need to discuss the content on the talk page first. Also, you cannot misrepresent sources, which you did in your first edit. Wikipedia's only obligation is to provide information as it is presented in reliable sources; if Modi loses (or wins) the election because of that, that's none of our affair. Also, the material about demonetization is a summary of that article, which examines hundreds of sources about the subject, and at the moment is doing a fairly good job of presenting information in a manner compliant with WP:DUE. Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)