Open main menu

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16

Contents

AniEdit

  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)

Time TravelerEdit

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)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019Edit

DYK nomination of King's Cross Thameslink railway stationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of King's Cross Thameslink railway station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

HughesEdit

hello, saw you were the one that Moved Hughes Communications to Hughes Network Systems, but i dont see the page renamed/moved? Hughes Network Systems still redirects to Hughes Communications. am i missing something? Melodies1917 (talk) 14:00, 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)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletterEdit

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration CaseEdit

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Previous listing as a partyEdit

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Deleted- blp's userfiication requestedEdit

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 "Clarice E. Phelps" [draft prematurely turned] blp from you(?)diff Thanks--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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, user:DGG - Inasmuch as content formerly at 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)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

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)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

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 required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

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)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  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 passed a motion amending the 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 formal ratification process, the 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


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for King's Cross Thameslink railway stationEdit

 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)

May
 
Rapeseed
... with thanks from QAI

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)

Section links and bypassing redirectsEdit

Sigh, I got this wrong again, thanks. I've checked the rest of the month; there are no more redirects to a section. Per WT:ERRORS#Section links and bypassing redirects, I'd prefer lyric dramas, but I won't push it because the argument can be made that, in this case, the hovertext isn't confusing. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  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)

Queue 5Edit

Hi, the new hook about Filipino Americans is written poorly and not piped well. I would suggest:

... 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)

ITN recognition for 2018–19 Premier LeagueEdit

 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)

courtesy deletion...Edit

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)

AnnunciationsEdit

Hi, see Category:Annunciation in Christian art. The notion that 15th-century paintings have fixed titles like modern ones is wrong. There are standard names for the main religious subjects though. WP:THE applies. See WP:VAMOS for further details. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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 The Annunciation, as it is always so called. Try getting that past WP:THE. It's the same with most of the events in this template. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination of MontsoreauEdit

Dear @Amakuru:, I have nominated the article Montsoreau for GA-status according to the criteria. Would you mind to review it or to give me your feeling? All my very best, --Suavemarimagno (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Dun Nechtain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Macpherson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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)

Midland LeagueEdit

Hi Amakuru. Please start a WP:RM for the Midland League if you think it should be moved. Undoing a reverted move isn't really on. Cheers, Number 57 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@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)
@Number 57: please can you at least explain the rationale your position? Ignoring the issue of which page was the incumbent primary topic for a second, how can you possibly think a 9th-tier league founded five years ago is more primary than a once third-tier league which existed for nearly 100 years? That's pretty much the definition of 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)
Return to the user page of "Amakuru".