Open main menu

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

Contents

INVOLVEDEdit

Sorry, but I'm really sick of the blatant ignoring of INVOLVED by a number of admins, and since nobody else is saying anything about it, I thought I would. In my ideal Wiki world, a violation of INVOLVED like that would cause a whole bunch of admins to swarm against the violator in reaction. I can dream, can't I? --В²C 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: yes, I do agree with you in principle. There was no call for that INVOLVED reversal of your actions when there had been no attempt to discuss it with you. I do support the spirit of your proposal to warn JzG, but given the reactions we've already seen to the proposal from those who are unjustly baying for your blood, there's little chance of the proposal for a warning succeeding, and I don't personally think it's a fight worth fighting. You're welcome to ignore my advice here, but as hard as it might be I would recommend that you try to turn the other cheek and just keep focusing on the actual work of building an encyclopedia and getting our article names in good order, rather than getting embroiled in battles with those who disagree with you. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"unjustly baying for your blood". At this point I became interested in your contributions to main, have you got something as excitable as that for me to read? cygnis insignis 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignia: I'm not sure I follow you... You want me to highlight contributions I've made that are as exciting as blood baying? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It is dog latin, I forgive the misspelling. If you could, even if the topic is boring there are ways to amplify and control the narrative. cygnis insignis 08:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit

WikiCup 2019 March newsletterEdit

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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  •   Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  •   MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  •   Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  •   Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  •   Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Help!Edit

Good day.

Sorry for bothering you. But a troll group is active in Wikipedia. Their actions are directed against one company. I previously worked for this company. The attacks have not stopped for about 8 years. This group began active actions immediately after the conclusion of contracts with the United Arab Emirates. This is a company engaged in the development of new transport technology. Now a testing ground is being built in the UAE within the framework of the American University of Sharjah.

Analysis of changes.

1. The name has been changed. “String Transport” by “SkyWay Group”. String Transport is a transportation technology that has been developed by scientist and inventor Anatoli Yunitski since the 1970s. Now the company founded by this person has its own project designing bureau, production facilities, test site, and the construction of a test line in the UAE has begun. SkyWay Group is a non-existent term that does not relate to String Transport.

2. Earlier, Anatoli Yunitski tried to start working in different countries. Thus, a demo sample based on a ZIL truck was even built in Russia in the 1990s. This clearly proved a high durability and reliability of string track structures. But in Russia, repeated attempts to take away promising developments were made. As a result, Yunitski was forced to leave the project. This story repeated in Australia. After a long search for a suitable region, it was decided to return to Belarus, where everything had to be started anew. And now, when the company SkyWay Technologies is close to bringing the project to life, trolls’ activity increased.

3. The article reads: “Unfortunately, no one from the SkyWay Group has ever implemented a project outside Belarus” - this is a lie. Video from the construction site in the UAE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz0PIqa2o18.

4. The article says: “Although many countries, including Australia, India, Indonesia, Italy, Lithuania and the United Arab Emirates started negotiations with the SkyWay group, no projects have been implemented” - a lie again. Memorandums have been signed and cooperation continues, however, no country can begin construction until the technology has passed certification, the company's employees are actively working on it now. (At least 2 months ago, when I worked there, it was like this).

5. The article contains false information about financial irregularities - another slander from the detractors of the project. There are no securities related to string transport on sale. Investors are invited to purchase part of the intellectual property rights, the evaluation of which is deposited as the authorized capital in a company attracting investments. Central banks have not found any illegal actions done by representatives of companies offering to invest in the technology development in exchange for a part of the intellectual property rights, and regulators have issued a warning to secure themselves and relieve themselves of responsibility. Thus, in spite of the warning, there are major investors of the project in Germany, and Slovakia awarded the International Peace Prize to the General Designer of String transport for “a significant contribution to the development of human civilization, improvement of human living conditions and ensuring safety throughout the world.” https://www.teraz.sk/slovensko/tradicne-ankety-zdruzenia-nef-hospod/358270-clanok.html There are many other points in this article. I ask you to interfere because the standard methods for resolving disputes in Wikipedia do not help. I watched the history of changes and discussion of the article. A group of ill-wishers has misled the administrators. They started it all over a month ago. There is a forum in Russia, in which they coordinate their work: they discussed there the possibility of creating or replacing the page doing discrediting videos on YouTube.

Attempts to edit the article did not lead to any result. Five other users and me were suspended and called it vandalism. But how would you call the things that these people did?

Help me to return the article or delete it completely, thank you for any help. In my turn, I am ready to help with the creation of an article containing objective information. Based on facts and my experience as an engineer. You should understand that it's unpleasant to watch how they destroy what you have been working on for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksei Pobol (talkcontribs) 14:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4Edit

Hi, I worked very hard last night to fill Preps 3 and 4 with women-only hooks for March 8 International Women's Day. (See discussion at WT:DYK#Women's history month.) I left one hook which I approved (and therefore wasn't able to promote) in the special occasion holding area for March 8, and we also have some other women's hooks in the special occasion holding area under March. I don't understand why you filled the empty slots in Prep 4 with men's hooks. Would you be able to swap them out with Template:Did you know nominations/Tanya Saracho and something else from the March holding area? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Collective is also a good candidate for a non-bio slot. Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: oh, I'm sorry... I had no idea. It was just that we were down to less than twelve hours to go, and I didn't know anyone was coming back so I filled things in as best as I could. I don't have time to work on it right now I'm afraid, but I can push the two back from queue to prep so you can have a bit longer to get it into the state you want. Let me know once that's done and I can repromote back to the queues. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll get to it shortly. Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghost WorldEdit

I understand the argument that there is no primary topic based on historical significance, but what about usage? The page views show the film gets far more views. --В²C 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I suppose this comes down to the point you made on your talk page that the rules aren't clearly written and it depends on who shows up as to what result gets chosen. I probably tend to rank significance a bit more highly than popularity myself, particularly when it's a film based on a book and both are clearly very significant. Obviously that's a hand-wavy answer though, and I can well see why other editors would feel differently.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. I suppose ranking historical significance a bit more highly than usage means it's unlikely you would favor removing the significance criteria altogether, LOL. I wish we could at least say that if one criteria does not favor either, but the other criterion does favor one topic, to go with that topic as being primary. --В²C 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: yeah, I definitely wouldn't get rid of significance altogether... that would probably mean changing textbook examples like Apple vs Apple Inc. - the page view statistics are always skewed for that one, which is probably inevitable in our tech-mad world, but I think most people agree that the primary topic is set correctly in that instance, and I don't remember it being significantly challenged before.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3Edit

Hi, you just promoted this set before I could fix one of the hooks. The Farm Vegetarian Cookbook hook should say at the end "any European language". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've added European. thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone IdaiEdit

I have reverted your edit on Cyclone Idai per WP:CALC. All totals are accurately sourced, albeit it needs some reworking as new information comes out. NoahTalk 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I'm sorry, the bar for WP:CALC is higher than that. Its fine if it is a well-explained footnote with every source detailed and verifiable, but that is not the case here. If you wish to use that figure, please put all citations into the one footnote and explain the calculation, otherwise it is not possible for an outsider to confirm or verify it and as a figure used on the main page it must be beyond dispute. In the meantime, the source I have provided is a recent source and gives an overall figure of more than 150. Which in any case is not wrong even if the actual figure is more then 173. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Should be fixed. NoahTalk 22:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: excellent, thank you. I have updated "in the news" accordingly.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Amakuru".