User talk:Amakuru/Archive 17

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your input at Time Traveler (roller coaster). As such, I have removed the image you substituted in the infobox as the design is copyrighted and, due to its three-dimensional design, can also be considered a sculpture. As you noted, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States, so no image of a copyrighted three-dimensional structure would be permitted. I look forward to working with you on removing all the other images of roller coasters on the site that are located in the United States. Consistency and all that. --McDoobAU93 03:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: the main issue with the previous photo was that it was being used under a fair use license to depict the "logo" of the Time Traveler ride, even though it apparently wasn't the logo. That fair use rationale therefore wasn't valid and the image should either have been freely published (if you feel that it's not depicting a copyrighted sculpture), or deleted. I wouldn't have thought that there's any issue with showing pictures of the rail track, so taking that out seems overkill, but I'm no expert on the matter. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You're no "expert on the matter", but instead of offering that suggestion, you simply deleted it. Again, I agree with your assessment and have requested speedy deletion of the track image, as it would fall under the same criteria regarding freedom of panorama in the United States. The coaster track is not intended for permanent or temporary human occupancy, in the same manner that interactive art exhibits are designed to be experienced for a short period of time. Thank you for pointing out my error. --McDoobAU93 00:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Melodies1917: apologies for this. It seems that there was some clean-up to do, because the target article was merged into the source article in 2009 and needed to be kept for attribution reasons. And I must have then forgotten to actually go ahead and do it. I have now sorted this out by moving the old version to Talk:Hughes Network Systems/Old version, and completed the move as requested. Let me know if there any further issues. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. --

@DeltaQuad: OK, thanks for clarifying!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. I tried here--> diff. --- In answer to my inquiry on an admins' noticeboard I'm told to request so-called userification in my userspace of the "

to simplify cross-refernencing, my comment to Hodgdon's secret garden's request to me was, "It is not realistic of you to expect any admin to do anything of the sort while an arb case on the use of admin tools in restoring the article is active. I followed up on a suggestion of yours about this before, and it did not go well. " DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru,

Clarice E. Phelps namespace hasnt been subject of any AfD / DRV it's _this_ Im wishing userfied thx--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk

) 21:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Personally I might have been tempted to grant this request, especially as the other version of the draft is currently restored in draft space. Having the page in user space is a very different beast from having an actual article. But since DGG cautions against it, I will stay out of the matter for now. If someone else wants to userfy it I have no objection. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Guess that leaves me at square one awaiting the review (arb) discussion user:DGG mentioned to wrap up then. Thanks for your considered response.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Great news! Somebody cleverly "way backed" user:DGG's draft[1] - hooray!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: thanks for the update and apology. I am glad that Arbcom have recognised the poor tone of the original message. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS Necrothesp Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman Interface administrator changes Pharos

Bureaucrat changes Primefac CheckUser changes Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a
  WP:GNG
  .

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

On 8 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article King's Cross Thameslink railway station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that King's Cross Thameslink railway station, then known as King's Cross Metropolitan (pictured), was one of the initial seven stations on London's first underground line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/King's Cross Thameslink railway station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, King's Cross Thameslink railway station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Good one! - Thank you for fixing the sad quirky, among so many other fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks for your kind words. Glad to help where I can. And it's good to have a DYK, can't even remember the last one. I need to do more article writing, it's what we're all here for after all...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome! - If you don't get to writing articles, you could still review one or two. I have several noms open for review, and some about people who "recently" died but it's no more recently. Look for "nom" on my user page. In some cases, a reviewer just doesn't like my approach to making a hook ... - I don't want to say just a quirky little bit about someone who just died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, I got this wrong again, thanks. I've checked the rest of the month; there are no more redirects to a section. Per

) 20:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Keep being the voice of reason. You can lead a horse to water ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

but his latest edit summaryies proves the adage true. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes User:7&6=thirteen I saw that. But anyway, hopefully the matter is over and no need to engage, just ignore it. Thanks for the barnstar by the way. Much appreciated.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am completely disengaged. Treating it like a fart on the elevator (lift); if you know what I mean. Hopefully he will fade away, like a bad distant memory. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way,

WP:Ping doesn't work for me. But [[User:7&6=thirteen]] does. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎

) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

... that the earliest permanent Filipino American residents settled in Louisiana's bayou country?

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Alright, it seemed OK to me, but I've amended to your suggestiled version anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

On 15 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2018–19 Premier League, 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied to your BLP1E claim at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_10.

You also discounted the question as to whether Ms Nelson's wishes mattered.

I was surprised, a decade or so, to learn that the wikipedia had a long-standing convention to take the wishes of BLP subject's into account, and agree to delete otherwise OK BLP articles, as a courtesy, when their notability is near the cusp. In principle it would be simpler if we were tough minded, and ignored all requests from BLP subjects. But we don't. These decisions are very subjective. Aggressive BLP subjects who make demands, rather than appeal to our sympathy are very likely to have their requests dismissed. When there are factors that appeal to the emotions of those deciding whether to agree to courtesy deletion, even a very notable person will win courtesy deletion.

Because Ms Nelson is an articulate beautiful young woman she would have a very strong sympathy factor on her side, if she appealed for a courtesy deletion. If she were to add to that an assertion like "I defended my mother's publication of the naked photo of me, when I was child, but that was half my lifetime ago, and I now agree with the politicians who saw me as a victim of child abuse..." This would be the clincher. She would almost certainly win courtesy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Plus, personally, I don't want to work on an article about her, if she doesn't want to be covered here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

canonical gospels

Early life Annunciation Visitation Joseph's dreams Nativity Virgin birth Annunciation to the Shepherds Adoration of the Shepherds Circumcision Adoration of the Magi Flight into Egypt Massacre of the Innocents Presentation Return to Nazareth Finding in the Temple

Ministry Baptism Temptation Twelve Apostles Sermon on the Mount / Plain Beatitudes Lord's Prayer Miracles Parables Prayer Rejection Transfiguration

Passion Triumphal entry into Jerusalem Temple cleansing Second coming prophecy Anointing Last Supper Farewell Discourse Paraclete promised Agony in the Garden Kiss of Judas Arrest Sanhedrin trial Mocking Herod's court Pilate's court Flagellation Crown of Thorns Via Dolorosa Crucifixion Descent from the Cross Entombment Harrowing of Hell

Resurrection Empty tomb Appearances Noli me tangere Road to Emmaus Great Commission Ascension

In rest of the NT Road to Damascus John's vision

Portals: Christianity Bible

v t e

Hi, see

Hi @Johnbod: thanks for your message. And sorry to be always disagreeing with you on art-related titles! But I have to say I'm slightly confused by this. It seems like either the title of the work is Annunciation, in which case we shouldn't include "the" in the prose at all. Or the title is The Annunciation, in which case it should always be included, even in the title. And sure, I understand your point about 15th-century paintings not having precise titles, but it doesn't seem to make semantic sense to write "The Annunciation". The definite article refers not to the painting (as it would if it were a ship, "the Mary Rose") but to the event it depicts. Anyway, I'll have a look around and see how reliable sources style this, and I might consider starting an RM about this if the evidence is there... Thanks, and have a good weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how art is any different to the event itself, so by your logic the main article should be

WP:THE. It's the same with most of the events in this template. Johnbod (talk

) 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Please start a

@Number 57: No, you need to start an RM. The article in question described the 1889 league until it was split without discussion. I have done a history split of the article to clean up the mess, and am currently working on disambiguating all the incoming links between the two. More than half of the links are to the 1889, which means they were pointing at the wrong place... with a fair few for the 2014 too, so it's a fairly clear case of no PTOPIC anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No I don't. The article was split a while ago, and the current version has been stable for a couple of years. Number 57 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: You can't just switch the primary topic like that without discussion. The article was not stable at the 2014 league because *the history pertained to the 1889 league*. Which, as a feeder league for division two of the football league, is clearly a more prominent topic than the level 9 league of the present-day. As I said, I'm in the middle of working on the incoming links, I'd appreciate if you'd please move the article back to 2014 and start an RM if you think it should be otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't just been done though. I won't be moving the article back – you need to start an RM to have it moved. I'm amazed we're even having this discussion... Number 57 21:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RECENTISM. I guess I'll have no choice but to start an RM if you refuse to undo the move, but your position makes no real sense from an encyclopedic standpoint. My original move should have been utterly uncontroversial and the original split (which was performed badly, with no regard for page history or incoming links) should never have taken place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk

) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The rationale is that a current entity generally takes priority over a defunct one when it comes to the main title, even if it is not necessarily as high profile as the other organisation. See e.g. Maidstone United F.C. (1897)/Maidstone United F.C.. Agree that the original split was not done correctly (and by a user that I have regularly castigated for problematic editing), but the current article would have remained where it was at the point of the split anyway. Number 57 22:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Number 57: alright, thanks for the explanation and apologies for the earlier move warring. It's been a useful exercise anyway because most of the 1889 links are now fixed. Lots of Port Vale, Leeds United and Sheffield United players plied their trade there back in the 1890s and 1900s it would seem.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for sorting out all the links! Number 57 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Tuesday's upcoming POTD hasn't yet been chosen. Are you going to be scheduling it soon? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: I'll look at it now. Been away for the weekend and only just got back. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: OK, done. I've put Allegory of Prudence in there.... since there are still a lot of artworks that were promoted in 2015/16, I'm still trying to make sure we don't go more than a week without having one... Do you want to write the blurb, or shall I?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've created the blurb; feel free to edit it as required. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. In this edit, I think (but I'm not 100% certain) that it would be Canadian rather than US dollars. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@

MOS:CURRENCY doesn't mention that one...  — Amakuru (talk

) 10:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

While that seems logical, according to Canadian dollar, it should be Can$ or C$. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. How confusing. I've just spelled it out in full then. Makes it unambiguous!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see you changed the image here. Please rewrite the "(pictured, right)" part in the hook, to just (pictured). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: done, thanks. For some reason I was thinking it meant that the picture was on the right... Which of course we never say.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

the capitalization was indeed good; I disagree about adding the geographical identifier -- reduces the hooky nature. ∯WBG^converse 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: not sure I agree. "Hooky" is fine, but that shouldn't mean the text lacks basic information necessary to parse its meaning. A lot of readers will be unfamiliar with "the Emergency", and without any other clue as to where the subject comes from, it means than when read on its own, the hook gives no clue as to what's going on.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Which means that the reader clicks on the links in the hook to find out what is going on. ∯WBG^converse 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at

WT:DYK. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk

) 16:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you didn't copy your edits to the unprotected version of tomorrow's POTD over to the protected version. Would you mind doing so? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: OK, sure. If you're happy with them. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

They're fine, yeah. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. Copied. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Coventry City F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that Coldstream Guards would be a better target article than Facial hair in the military? Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military uses the former page, which also seems like a more natural title for the picture to me. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: thanks for the message. The choice was made by Adam Cuerden because it's his birthday on Sat and he chose the more quirky facial hair topic for a bit of light-heartedness. The image does appear on both articles so could use either but I don't have a strong opinion myself. Feel free to change it consult with Adam if you don't like it. If we're focusing on the facial hair then that should be the main linked article though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced the blurb and target article and left a note at Adam's talk page explaining this. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: well alright, but really I wouldn't pay any attention to the caption on the FP page. The point of featured pictures is to highlight encyclopedic content, in whichever form. Facial hair in the military was highlighted at the time of promotion as one of them. Probably would have left it at that myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An
  WP:OUTING
  should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of
  Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences
  : look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Regarding your revert, you've reverted a similar change last time when Alucard 16 preformed one. I talked to you about

@Gonnym: apologies, it had slipped my mind that I promised to start an RFC on the issue, I must have never got around to it. I've therefore now supported the RM request, I don't feel that strongly about it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Coventry City F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

do not believe in faux civility. Urge your friend to refrain from trolling, if he expects favorable treatment. Also, he has made dozens of edits over the course of last few hours and the template usage notes state:- Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing ... If you later resume editing, please remove this template from your user page. which is amply clear. ∯WBG^converse 14:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if someone does insist on making an obviously false claim about themselves on their userpage, it does help us judge the reliability of anything else they may say. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

People will draw their own conclusions on that point. But your opinion on the validity of the template doesn't justify an unwanted edit on another user's page, especially one with disrespectful language about "diva-quits" etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. ∯WBG^converse 14:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, it's clear that Rob didn't want to remove the "Retired" notice from his talk page, given that Duncan had already raised the matter and he'd responded. If you really think the matter is of such importance that he needs to be forced to remove it, then go and file a complaint about it at

WP:NOBAN - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". Edits to people's pages accompanied by rude edit summaries are neither expected nor helpful in my expedience.  — Amakuru (talk

) 14:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Amakaru, if you actually cared about civility, rather than protecting your friends, you would have blocked Rob for his repeated personal attacks on Fram. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you are using for this, please see WT:DYK - Increase number of hooks. We just changed the Template:Did you know/Clear so it has 9 hooks in the prep area. Might be that way for a long haul, with the going trend of short hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: noted, thanks. My method of clearing is usually just to locate the previous clear-down and reset the page to that version, but will make sure to explicitly use the nine-hook version until that is bedded down in all the prep areas. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Secret Life of Pets 2 (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the The Secret Life of Pets 2 (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just posted twice to User_talk:Xezbeth#Two_Owsley_articles, the second time because I saw a similar subject matter in your User_talk:Xezbeth#McKinsey post to the same user page in early May and followed it a ways. I may get satisfactory response on my own but I thought I'd let you know of my encounter, also. I may have managed to 'ping' you on this, separately; sorry if it's done twice now. Thanks. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I unprotected Gloria Vanderbilt since I blocked the main IP culprit of disruption. If there are more persistent problems we can reprotect, but I thought it was best to leave it open if possible. Ping FlightTime Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 15:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: alright, thanks. Let's wait and see.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Coventry City F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Curtis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There was one support, one oppose, and one "no view" on this. Without going into the strengths of the "arguments" it should have at least been relisted, or closed as no consensus. Also, nb, Anfield, Liverpool is currently a circular link on the disam page. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I assessed it as consensus (with evidence) that the current name is ambiguous, similar to other cases mentioned, and no consensus to move the stadium article. Happy to relist it for you though. I might support the move and someone else can close it next time, since the arguments seem fairly convincing to me. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I can't see how this could have been closed as no consensus since the only oppose !vote was that the stadium should be moved instead while it was pointed out that the current title doesn't disambiguate from the current PT, I'm fine with a relist to see if something else should be done but its clear that the current situation cannot remain, see Talk:Finsbury Park (area)#Requested move 5 September 2018 for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the oppose vote and made it entirely clear I was opposed to the nom. I didn't even clearly support moving the stadium. I'd better quote the lot: "*Oppose' this frankly crazy idea. Probably move the stadium, per above." Breathtakingly misleading account. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your measured and sober assessments on ANI. Thanks for all that you do for the project! User:Lightburst 23:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think anyone is justified in tagging an article which is about to go the main page when it's packed with unreferenced claims and what was about to be presented on the main page wasn't even accurate. As of right now, if you're not happy with the process I've ended up with, you don't have to do anything. It'd be a shame because history has shown that WP:TRM is about three times more effective than WP:ERRORS. But it 100% depends on dedicated people like you. In any case, thanks for your help over the last year. We're knocking on for 2,000 fixes, which I don't think is something to be sniffed at by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: no I totally agree with you, mate. No complaints from me, and please keep up the good work. I just can't be bothered with getting into debates with people at DYK who think you're somehow being disruptive. I have enough other things to stress about. I'll just judge the individual cases on their own merits, fix the errors, pull substandard articles from the queue, and let others worry about the politics of it all. Wishing a pleasant weekend to you and yours.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That is ALL GOOD. Same to you, bon weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: good morning to you and I'm sorry for not notifying you - that was an oversight. And yes, in retrospect I should have noted what the errors were before making the changes, but obviously my priority was to get the template working again as real articles were being affected. On the matter of the process, the RM had been relisted by BD2412 just half an hour before your attempted close, with comments that it should be given another week, so arguably it was your close that was out of process. I see little value in our bickering over that, though - the important thing is that we give more thought and care to this via the talk page, and hopefully a successful resolution will come out through the relist, either for a properly effected and checked move, or to leave the status quo in place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, can you please stop by the nomination page the next chance you get, since it needs your concurrence to proceed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the last hook in this set was being discussed at

Actually, since he was jailed in 2004 but only sentenced in 2005, his detainment can't really be called "serving time". Perhaps write:

• ... that a podcast helped overturn the murder conviction of Kaj Linna after he had been imprisoned for thirteen years? Yoninah (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Yoninah: done. Thanks for pointing this out!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you again, it is always a pleasure to receive this anniversary reminder. Is it really seven years already since Rwanda was on the main page? Time flies. All the best to you, and keep doing the good work you do!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, really 7 years, which means it could appear again, as Kafka will in two days, - fitting in times more kafkaesque than normal, - or is it just more obvious? Anyway, your presence in Main page clean-up is felt daily, - thank you! I just simplified Precious, brave enough now to tell people from the start that it comes from the

designer of the template banned, and left-behind me keeping the spirit ;) - (and yes, I still quote him in in my edit notice 7 years later) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 22:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of
  CSD criterion G8 has been tightened
  such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of
  CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly
  to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)
  significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board
  .

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Well I've heard of it, but I don't know about the opening line. All I know is "it's a gas gas gas...." Certainly not true that most or even many will get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason I've never been exposed to or listened to the Rolling Stones. The 1960s were before my time, and my parents were more Beatles people. Sounds like that would be a suitable song for Bristol Rovers fans. Anyway, apparently I'm told that we allow different capitalization for the quirky spot... that's nice to know, posting inaccurate information on the main page in the name of a joke that few people will get. I need to be careful, I may become as cynical as you!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I read it and thought "I don't know even know what the hell that means" and moved on. I didn't even bother checking if the target article was any good. It was a complete turnoff. Oh and I'm not cynical, I just know where some of the quality issues are around here, today's an exemplar!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Wishing you a happy 4th! Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: thanks for the greetings. I hope you had a pleasant holiday weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm proposing the recreation of Draft:Root Insurance Company as I believe I have been better able to establish notability. Calvinballing (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Calvinballing: yes, seems fair. I've moved the article into mainspace for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Calvinballing (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, we're waiting for your response at this nomination so we can promote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the revert of your edit at the Fram discussion, was by accident. Sorry again. Kante4 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kante4: no worries, I've done that myself before! All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

But the consensus at

@Dicklyon: ah, I see what you mean. It must have been formatted weirdly, because there was no RM notice posted on the Norwegian campaign article. It seems like that one follows the others similar, anyway, so I've gone ahead and moved it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, sometimes when a couple of rejected technicals are converted to an RM discussion they don't do it right. I had fixed Burma campaign, but missed this one somehow. This is one reason I don't like the process of automatically converted rejected technicals to RM discussions without the OP's involvement. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru,

I saw that you recently moved the Rural Municipality page after the discussion. Thanks. I was one of the ones who thought that since the article as written is entirely about Canadian RMs, it should be re-named.

The discussion reminded me of a different page, one that I think should be deleted. It's a mis-spelt redirect for the Canadian territory of

It strike me that keeping a mis-spelt page as a re-direct encourages mis-spelling in articles. If an editor incorrectly uses the mis-spelling as a wikilink, there's no indication that it's a spelling error. However, if the

I'm sure there's a wiki policy on this somewhere, but I couldn't find it so I thought I'd ask an administrator.  :) --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: thanks for your question here. The decision on whether to delete the redirect usually depends on whether it's a useful redirect for users if they happen to type that term into the searchbox. Spelling mistakes that are very often made tend to keep their redirects, but not always. This one was created very early in Wikipedia's history, in 2002. My suggestion for you would be to go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and follow the instructions there, for proposing deletion of the redirect. Others will then come and comment on whether they think it should or shouldn't be deleted. Thanks, and happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru. It looks like there is a policy and two of the grounds for keeping it would apply here: (1) the redirect link is very old, so eliminating it might affect a number of other pages; and (2) if it redirects a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling: When should we delete a redirect? Given that, I won't ask to have it removed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for that scarecrow joke yesterday. Corny, of course, but not in a bad way. Really "grounds" a story about standing alone in a field against semiravenous birds when the crowd is firmly (if subconsciously) in on the notion that buddy won the big one in a cornfield. Comedy or drama, corn is metaphorical gold in any town where corn is literally sold. Whether you meant to or not, you struck it rich last night. Congratulations!

But when I said we'd need to something about your name, that was just part of my act. A callback to a time I wasn't alive for in a place I've only seen on TV, read about in books and tried to reimagine online just "once or twice" before. So not to ruin a bad joke further by needing to explain the punchline aloud, but struggling to adapt to these "modern sensibilities" I've only heard "the kids" (Joplin, Dylan, Mitchell) sing about while "hepped up on goofballs" (referring to myself), allow me, if you will, good man, a chance to redeem your satisfaction (no guarantees implied):

Your name is alright, seriously. It's just that "in my day" ('80s pop culture expositions of purported '50s backstage filth), it seems like the "thing to do" when discovering ripe new corn-based talent is/was to change their name to something less "exotic" for the domestic market (corn-fed white Midwestern American folk). So I figured you might get a kick out of it, an allusion to "simpler times", as it were. But a day late, it dawned on me that you may likely be a proud African male (18 to 34). It is in this strange spirit of white-but-Canadian guilt I sincerely beg your pardon today, eh?

My people often forget the cruel indignities imposed on your people's ancestral cousins during, before and after the

That question is hello! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: wow, this is quite the essay you've penned for me here. Thanks for that. You needn't have worried, though - (a) I confess I hadn't even looked back at that thread until now, so didn't see your response, (b) I didn't think you were talking about me personally, just a general joke, and (c) I'm actually not African myself, though it would be good if I were, as representatives from the continent on WP seem to be few and far between. I'm just another boring white British nerd like so many others here... I did spend many years in Rwanda and Kenya though, and through marriage I now have an extended African family, so can't complain too much. Anyway, I hope your amakuru ni meza this morning, and, might I add, amashyo to you as well!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Well in that case, here's a boring white guy joke, stop me if you've heard it before...Nerd! Get it? Cause you're a nerd! Anyway, you have a bright future in the industry. Keep on truckin'! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

By the way, your link said no way, I've had enough. So I Googled it and wound up on Twitter. Met a guy who advised "amashyo" was replaced by "warbyibushye" in late 2017. Any truth to that? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, clicked again and it worked. Thanks! I had a cow who had a bull, and he's doing well. Castrated, but well. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

Ha, you've found a good one there. And actually, it's not just since late 2017 that such a greeting has been used. For as long as I've known Rwanda, people there have regularly greeted each other with "wow, you are looking very fat today!" In a country where many people are very poor, rely on what they can grow to feed their families, and don't have any of the rich fattening food we take for granted, that's a compliment indeed... it means the other person is clearly healthy and doing well in life. When aimed at an overweight westerner living in the country, though, it can cause considerable offence. Cultural boundaries...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cheer whatever takes effort. But are these fortunate chunkers actually near American standards of fat? When your weight stops you from breathing OK, that seems unhealthy anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, July 11, 2019 (UTC) 18:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh crap, the guilt has dawned anew. I forgot boring white British nerds can sometimes be as fat as onbnoxious black American cheerleaders and sometimes refer to themselves as westerners. Even if you aren't the type, I meant no considerable offence. Nothing shameful about poor physical fitness, it just objectively isn't healthy, at either extreme. When I named myself this, I was buff, but I'm tree wizard gangly lately, for what it's worth (any my teeth are worse than Austin Powers', utterly unshagadelic). Under no pressure to confirm or deny anything you don't want to, to be clear. Good luck to swingers of all shapes, use what you've got! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, July 12, 2019 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what the difference is, a tree wizard maxes out at two shouldered corvids, while a scrawny scarecrow can attract and support dozens. Instead of corncob pipes of meth, we wield dragonskull bongs of herb. And rather than ultralow frequency soundwaves, we cast and weave through a trinary digital bitstream. Also, all wizards are never blonde. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, July 12, 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not particularly overweight. I even go to the gym and stuff, and try to fix errors on the main page in between reps. So once again, you've failed to offend me I'm afraid. In fact very little offends me, even if it's true, so you can stay safe on this page, I won't report you to the WMF T and S team 🤗  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Which once again proves my point: A retarded wizard is as common as a brainy scarecrow, in reality. Also, Germans love David Hasselhoff. A little Norm Macdonald for you there, now that I know you can handle it. Is he a thing in the UK or Rwanda yet? Far funnier than Celine Dion or Bryan Adams, if you're worried about gaining the boredom back. I'll bet your mother would like him, nerd! Seriously though, she's alright and I'll let you get back to work on your delts, brother! Hasta la vista, as they say in Kansas. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, July 12, 2019 (UTC)

Please explain on what basis you consider my edits to the infobox (which according to consensus should not be there anyway) at Next United Kingdom general election. Kevin McE (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: eek, I wasn't intending to accuse you of that... do you know I've been on Wikipedia all this time and I didn't actually know that rvv means "reverting vandalism", I just thought it meant the same as rv. Apologies for the misundersanding and of course, your edits were made in good faith. I don't agree with them, but they're certainly not vandalism. All the best to you and wishing you a pleasant weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No prob Kevin McE (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I believe there was a consensus at

Regardless, on April 30, the page had originally been moved to "2019 Venezuela uprising" without consensus, and as the discussion progressed, more and more agreed that the current title is flawed. Almost all agreed at the very least that if the title contains "uprising" or "coup" then it should contain the word "attempted". Several of us raised the concern during the discussion that a "no consensus" decision would keep the status quo title which had been imposed without consensus and for which there was now a consensus against, and I was hoping that this would be addressed in the closer's rationale. Can you address it? (Apologies again for bothering you.) Thanks, Davey2116 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2116: thanks for your message and I will have another look at the RM tomorrow, when I have a bit of time. I would say, though, that there was a previous RM on this topic which affirmed the title of "uprising" (it was closed as "not moved", which usually means a consensus for the status quo). Also, unlike a coup, I don't think an uprising has to be "successful" to qualify as an uprising. But anyway, I will look at the discussion again tomorrow in case there was some consensus that I didn't spot previously. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, take your time. Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2116: apologies, I've been at the tennis in Wimbledon all day, but I will come back to this, hopefully tomorrow! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for re-starting the discussion! We can get a clearer picture of the consensus, whichever way it lands. (P.S.: I hope you enjoyed Wimbledon; sounds fun!) Davey2116 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@

women's doubles finals, as well as an invitational match featuring former champions Martina Navratilova and Marion Bartoli. First time I've been and it was nice just to soak up the atmosphere and enjoy the strawberries and cream.  — Amakuru (talk

) 16:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, you thought this was so urgent that you couldn't bother to talk to me about an image scheduled for three months from now before going off and posting a debate on the Main Page that failed to mention the historical importance, the notability of the photographer, that the only image we've banned for nudity or salaciousness since 2006 was literally a painting of an naked underage woman - and that one seems to have mostly been voted off more to avoid encouraging some sort of nasty situation with sock puppetry and attacks than any issues with it being a nude if you check the votes. Yes, in the very distant past we'd not schedule something with nudity. It's been over a decade since that's been a thing, and I don't think resurrecting it now helps anyone.

We've featured

@Adam Cuerden: has civility gone out of the window this morning? The discussion is of a general nature, and I have no doubt the image in question is important, but that doesn't mean it's suitable for the main page. So it's right to get the community's input beforehand. And obviously I pinged you into the discussion. Given the lack of consensus so far, I think a full RFC may be necessary and these things take time to work out. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, you go from a survey where you misrepresent the image, act as if censoring FP was normal when it hasn't been since 2006, and when I confront you about it, you start a survey, with all the misrepresentation in place? You're something else.

FPs

16:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Please stop trying to pin some blame on me for this. I didn't unilaterally delete the POTD or attempt to cut you out of the loop, and the failure of the ping to work properly is regrettable but was not intentional. I started the discussion in good faith, and because it didn't seem like it was going to generate a clear consensus I widened it to An RFC. And whatever you may think about the matter, it is clearly a closeup picture of genitals and the community needs to make a decision if that's allowed on the main page. None of the cited precedents are anything close to this type of image. Honestly you've put a dampener on my day after I woke up to the above telling off, and I don't think it's justified. I'm just trying to do the right thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The thing's scheduled for October. You're pushing this forwards very hard for somethibg with no near time limit. Did you need to start a survey before we xould talk over the issues and work out a neutral wordong, when I've made it very ckear I object to your heading and framing of the debate?

FPs

17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hostile much? I think using phrases like "try to do better in future" and "you're something else" aren't commensurate to helping here. Also, Adam, you seem to be the only one complaining about this being highlighted and discussed in such a fashion. The community at large seem to be doing a fine job of discussing it without resorting to such open hostility. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

Hi, did I restore all the right script after you "raked" the page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: yes, it looks like it, and apologies for the mix up. I tried using the "Did you know/Clear" template rather than just finding an old cleared version in the history today, to avoid missing updates that have happened in the last week such as [2]. Bbut it seems I still didn't use it correctly! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

my problem with the U.S - where it is from

Hello

I did want to fill you in that I don't have a problem with U.S. editors, I have a problem with people from several right-wing leaning states like Alabama, where dermies is from.

Alabama, Georgia, Texas and several other states that are extremely right and anti feminist. Mayb eI'm completely missing something as I am an Eritrean who lived in Southend-on-sea and London for most of his life, then moved ot Canada in mid 2018.

I've been tought over my life to have distrust towards such people, unlearning things is like me telling an American to unlearn whateve rvalues is dear to them.

We value freedom, and not invading other countries. So yeah, it's not all of the U.S. it's the right-wing anti abortion anti feminist states that I don't care fore, including Alabama, Georgia and Texas.

Pluss, I do have a problem with a country who's leader calls Africa a bleep hole and who tells Africans to "get out".

Maybe it is my pride being too high or something, it' show I was raised. I tell people, even though I speak with a British accent, and live din Southend-On-Sea and London for my whole childhood and London for my teenage years, and now Canada, that I am Eritrean, as I am born in Nakfa, and flead to the UK in 1998. I have similar problems with some parts of the UK, but I forgive the UK as they gave me a home, the U.S. would not.

So it's a combination of how I was raised, Donald Trump, and right-wing republican views in such states as Alabama, Texas and Georgia.

I do try to be civil as bes tI can, but I do not recognize authority from those states due to how I was raised.

I'm still unlearning things from my past, I used to be tought that my blindness meant I'd never amount to anything and i'm learning that that was false. These changes take time and are rather taxing on th emind.

Also next time an American wants to block me, don't do the short and sweet reasoning, it's like those officers in those TV shows, "you're arrested for murder, " "when?" "you're under arrest for murder, that's my answer."

Again maybe I'm missing something big time, and I trust you to help me understand form a wiki perspective.

I just don't trust pro gun and right-wing trump supporting and anti abortion people. And i know it's not all in those states, but it's enough that these things happen, maajority rules, and it hurts me to know that.

I do plan on engaging as best I can provided that they are willing to see where I am coming from too.

thanks

38.111.120.74 (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

John Hancock Tower

Did you intend to indefinitely full protect John Hancock Tower from editing as well as moving when you protected this article? Iffy★Chat -- 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iffy: good catch, thanks, and apologies for the mistake. Corrected.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Clemantine Wamariya

On 27 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clemantine Wamariya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Clemantine Wamariya was reunited with her parents on The Oprah Winfrey Show, twelve years after being separated from them during the Rwandan genocide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clemantine Wamariya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clemantine Wamariya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Your close at ITN

I don't think it is the end of the world. But that was a bad close. There is no clear indication that there was no chance of a consensus in support and there was no clear consensus in opposition. People cannot double vote so consensus may change as more people participate. There was no harm in leaving it open but by closing it you supervoted to oppose. You should let the nomination last the full 7-days or until there is a clear consensus in opposition. The arguments mentioning "not global" and "only US" should be ignored per established guidelines. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@

Coffeeandcrumbs: there is no requirement to keep an ITN nom open for seven days, and in many cases the news item would have gone off the bottom of the list by that time anyway. It's quite frequent to close off noms for lack of consensus, 24 hours into a discussion, when people end up talking across each other and the thing becomes a timesink. It would take an extraordinary turnaround for any consensus to emerge in that discussion. I get that you don't agree, but the arguments against posting were as valid as yours, and that's the way it goes sometimes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk

) 23:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the way it goes sometimes. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

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

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm back at RM

After about taking a year off of anything dealing with content because of real life things that made doing research through sourcing in my spare time significantly less enjoyable than it used to be, I've decided to take the plunge back into that side of the project. Still as fun and interesting as it used to be. A nice breath of fresh air from sockpuppets and LTAs. Next to finish my 17th century conclave series of GAs this week before the library books are due and I can't renew them anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Excellent news, and you are quite right. RMs are a great place to spend time, I personally think article titles is at least as important as deletions. But for the most part you don't get too much controversy or make too many enemies so it's a nice haven away from the rough and tumble of the drama boards! Content creation too. I've been trying to churn out a few more articles when time permits too. I'll look forward to reading the conclave GAs as and they're ready! Cheers, and have a good weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Calment close

Greetings Amakuru. I am puzzled by your close at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Jeanne Calment ("Seeking Consensus" subsection). I would have rated this as no consensus. Most of the supporters argue that the dispute is a conspiracy theory that should be considered FRINGE, but that can't be compared to the "fake moon landings": in one case, experts have relied chiefly on the recollections of the article subject about her own life, or her prior declarations to census officers; in the other case there are thousands of people who were direct witnesses to the Apollo program. Also, you say that you discounted arguments pointing out that the Calment case has been disputed since 2000, because sources had not been presented. All those sources are in the Jeanne Calment article, where numerous discussions since late 2018 have established consensus to describe the dispute in some detail, with appropriate caveats. As I said in my "Oppose" reasoning, the controversy about Jeanne Calment's age is now a key part of her notability. Hopefully it will be settled in the coming years. Would you reconsider your conclusions? — JFG ^talk 09:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: thank you for your query, and I have had another look at this case and the Calment article itself. However, I think given the arguments presented by those participating in the discussion, and the sourcing evidence as it stands, I have to stick by my close. It's certainly appropriate to discuss the issue in Calment's article itself, where several paragraphs can be devoted to nuances of the case, but for the "List of verified oldest people" we're limited to a single binary decision on whether to label it as "disputed" or not. Taking the weight of current published sources, the supporter argument is that it is not regarded in the mainstream as disputed, an assertion that wasn't conclusively refuted. Of course this may change in the future if more evidence comes to light, or more reliable sources jump on the bandwagon with some evidence of their own. Nothing is set in stone. I don't really have an opinion on this issue myself so really was just evaluating the presented arguments. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think the appropriate action is now to mention the dispute in a footnote, so as not to give it undue prominence while keeping readers aware of its existence. — JFG ^talk 11:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not certain that you

did jump to the wrong conclusion but there's no point in surfacing this in full public glare!

[3] Best. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: yeah, who knows. There are probably several ways to interpret the comments. But it's not really very important at this stage, the RFA is closed now and I'll assume good faith by default! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A
  administrator inactivity policy
  .

Arbitration

• Editors
  alert
  them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The
  removal for inactivity
  at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Recusancy#RfC:_Database_of_names_in_article

Hi, seeking help with an edit war situation related to the RfC close you recently made. Apparently an editor is refusing to abide by the results of the RfC close, and said "The deletion of these families have no merit. Will keep adding back if deleted again". They have undone the deleted names two times 1 and 2. I left a warning message on their talk page. They are ignoring talk discussions, ignored participation in the RfC, and ignored the invitation to discuss how to implement the close - it is brute force only. I believe this account is a sock, based on the limited SPA edit history, but have not investigated who the master might be. Can you help? -- GreenC 03:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Tenet DRN

Hi Amakuru,

I have tried to discuss the issue with Cognissonance on his talk page (see the section "Disruptive edits"). When I felt that Cognissonance was edit-warring, I went to 3RR, but was advised that DRN might be the more appropriate place to raise the issue. He has been active in the Tenet article since the DRN was posted, but appears to be ignoring it; in the meantime, he is reverting everything in the article itself. Between the discussions on his talk page and the DRN, I feel like I'm doing everything I can to address the issue, but I also feel that he has no intention of addressing it. I don't know what else I can do save go to ANI (and my last visit there is not going well). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: you talk of a dispute, but I don't see any evidence of what it is all about, what the contentious issues are, or any real attempt to discuss and compromise. The first place you should be dealing with this is at the article's own talk page, Talk:Tenet (film), which I note is still empty. Put a section there, with specific ideas or concerns, not about other editors but about the content you wish to see in the article. If you make a good faith effort at that process, and after some days there's no resolution, then fine, seek dispute resolution. But unless you clearly articulate the issues, and make good faith efforts to work through them with other parties, then going to DRN or ANI isn't going to get you anywhere and might even lead to sanctions against yourself. That is my advice to you. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the contentious issue is a hybrid of content and conduct, so I don't really know how to articulate that on the talk page. The edits that I am proposing are edits that I think are common sense and under normal circumstances do not need comprehensive discussion—for example, indicating that the Pärnu Highway is in Estonia. Now, I understand that Cognissonance might have concerns about that and I am willing to discuss them, but I want to see something that means the discussion is taken seriously. Looking at the edit history of the page, I think that Cognissonance is showing

WP:OWN behaviour, constantly reverting edits that he disagrees with. He even claimed that the article did not need copyediting as it had already been copyedited despite my pointing out the grammar errors. I am left with the impression that other editors are not welcome. How do I separate the content issue from the conduct issue when I feel that they are so closely related? Mclarenfan17 (talk

) 00:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru,

I decided to take a step back from the Tenet article and watch to see how things play out before going to the talk page. However, I noticed that Cognissonance's behaviour in the article has continued, unilaterally reverting almost every single edit that has been made. There are no edit summaries, talk page discussions or attempts to address editors individually. I believe that this is a clear case of

ownership behaviour, and I do not expect him to participate or engage in any talk page discussion (and I will ping him and notify him of the discussion on his talk page so he cannot be unaware of it), but wanted to notify an admin before I did anything more. Mclarenfan17 (talk

) 11:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Main Page talk

Please don't delete discussions about items that are still current on the Main Page. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: There was no consensus for any action, and you were the only person who thought there was a problem there. There is no need to keep things on the errors page if there's no prospect of the discussion leading anywhere. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Give these things a bit more time, please – they're still relevant as long as they're on the Main Page. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your perspective please

Amakuru, I am being retrospectively accused of edit warring with you when I reverted your revert here, on July 13, and I'm also being accused of unspecified large-scale controversial moves, in an attempt to indef block me. I don't understand why, but a bunch of editors have piled on, while I can't get them to tell me which large-scale moves were controversial. Your perspective might be useful since they accuse me of edit warring with you. Top section in

WP:AN/I. Dicklyon (talk

) 04:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind support there. I'm now appealing the supposed "ban" at

WP:AN. Dicklyon (talk

) 15:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

I was wondering if you could fix my Eunice Kettering hook in queue 4 to say age six instead of age 6. I asked yesterday on the DYK talk page, but no one will fix it. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: OK, done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding hooks for main page balance

Hi, could you consider pulling something already loaded in the prep sets to balance the DYK column, rather than using an old hook? We have six loaded prep sets to work with. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors

Hi Amakuru, hope you're well. Should I assume that either my comments are now too irrelevant or that you aren't actioning any of them or something else? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: morning to you, I'm well thanks and hope you are likewise, despite the ignomy of ITFC currently sitting lower in the league than Coventry... I'm not sure what your complaint here is referring to: is there something specific that you asked me to do, and I missed it? Or is it just a general failure to act on issues at WP:TRM recently? If the latter, I'll just have to make the same excuse I made regarding the late POTD last week - I was on holiday with the family, exploring Albanian hillsides and Greek islands and suchlike, hence not able to be on WP as much as usual. Back in rainy London now though, so hopefully will be able to process things in a more timely manner. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the latter, didn't realise you were away, no problem. As for ITFC, we're slow-burning and undefeated, and hopefully going to secure three points at home to the original Wimbledon tomorrow night. I am still optimistic for the season ahead (should be, I've got a season ticket now...!) The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: oh, nice! Hope you have a better season than last time, anyway. Not good seeing the once-great clubs struggling. "Home" games are in Birmingham for us this season...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny that, I drove past the Ricoh Arena (along Jimmy Hill Way) en route to Edgbaston for the cricket a couple of weeks ago. They still have the Cov badge on the side of the stadium... cheeky. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The stadium is owned by Wasps RFC these days, and I've been half expecting them to repaint all the seats from sky blue to black-and-yellow for a few years now. Who knows what will happen next, although with our august owners seemingly intent on pursuing never-ending legal action against Wasps, doesn't seem like we'll be back at the Ricoh any time soon. Miss the old days at Highfield Road, it had a far better atmosphere and the decision by the late-1990s management to overreach itself in moving to a stadium we didn't own has played a large part in the club's decline.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

going forward

Hello I've talked with some people in person about my feelings towards Southern-U.S. editors and I've decided I will work with them going forward. My feelings towards Alabama have not changed, but my plan is to do my best not to let these feelings effect interactions with Drmies.

I was supposed to be away from the country on this date as I had planned on going to London to reunited with some old friends, but due to family reasons that fell through, so I'm here and willing to fix any issues I have done. As for accusations by Graham87 of me being somebody else, I won't even touch them. thanks. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Only one "side"...

... resorted to personal attacks I'm afraid. And that individual should be being held to a higher standard and shouldn't be edit warring to remove his personal attacks in my own user space. Incredibly poor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I had a feeling you might come back to me on that one. I don't want to really get involved, but IMHO when one side says "Nonsense" (mildly impolite but not worth getting in a tizz about), then the other side asks them to modify their "TONE" and not be "RUDE", the first person retorts "not that you've ever been one to emulate in that respect", the second says "PISS off", and so on, that's pointless escalation by both sides, and doesn't help anyone. Sure, it was your userpage and you were probably correct about "virtually" not being an encyclopedic adverb, but in that situation I would just argue the issue, not the individual, and let the facts and the apparent consensus speak for themselves.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. And after two personal attacks, neither of which emanated from me, and then the attempts at removing them, the good faith was gone! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "... that unlike

  1975 is a spoken-word protest about climate change by Greta Thunberg (pictured)?" is mint. Use that, the other suggestions are shite. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!

  ) 21:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's almost the same as what's there now, except yours says "1975" instead of the "fourth eponymous song". Agree that's better, for concision and avoiding repetition, but we Might have to run that one past the committee since they chit-chatted and consensus-built earlier...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  It's a perfect solution. One fewer clause, one fewer repetition. Awesome. Sure, run it by the important people. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sure this should get the GERMAN ADMINBOTS after me for proxy sanction avoidance.... Sexing it up for the weekend! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh yes, rather. They'll say it wasn't an error, and the discussion has spilled over on to my talk page rather than ERRORS2. But perhaps that is OK if I explicitly invite you to discuss it here? And sign a disclaimer not to be offended if you're rude to me...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Well, of course. But defending "basic English" should be straightforward enough. Unless "GermamBot" swoops in to make an indef block.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Why not just keep the discussion to your errors page, and save everyone the trouble? Don't bother answering; I just wonder if that would be more productive than stretching the bounds of your restriction, and then wondering if someone, and one person in particular, will get you in trouble for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Finances of Notable Non-major candidates

I have opened a discussion of this issue on the talk page of the 2020 Republican Presidential primaries campaign page. Contrary to your assertion, i actually had already opened a discussion on the issue of Rocky De La Fuente's candidacy on the talk page. However I have opened a new discussion regarding the specific issue of campaign finances. I suggest you submit your remarks to the article's talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Yes, well that's great, and that is the place to discuss the matter. Ping other editors in if you need to. But when your edits are repeatedly reverted by multiple different editors that's usually a sign that you don't have consensus yet so you'll have to persuade them at the talk page . Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I know, i had left messages on several of these editors talk pages the first time around and none of them bothered to chime in on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	If only there was a guardian angel barnstar. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: many thanks for this, not been called a guardian angel before, so much appreciated! I'm still in awe of people such as yourself, though, who manage to produce new and good-quality articles day-in-day-out... Hope to see you soon, I am hoping to come to the later part of the meet-up in September although I have an important family race challenge to do with my son before that!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Because you deserve it! I will try and make that meet up too... Whispyhistory (talk) 20:18, 29 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) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

911 dab merge

Greetings Amakuru! Would you reconsider your opinion about the 911 dab merge proposal in light of comments by other editors? This discussion has been opened for a long time, and if you could be persuaded to change your "Oppose" stance, then we would have a rough consensus. — JFG ^talk 06:47, 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)