Open main menu

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



  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)


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.


  • 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.


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)

... 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)


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)

POTD unscheduled for 28 MayEdit

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)

@Mandarax: oh, sorry about that. That shows why it's better to be explicit in the first place, otherwise readers won't know which one is meant. I've changed it to "CA$" - is that the correct abbreviation? MOS:CURRENCY doesn't mention that one...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
While that seems logical, according to Canadian dollar, it should be Can$ 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)

Queue 5Edit

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. WBGconverse 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. WBGconverse 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WT:DYK. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019Edit

POTD for 2 JuneEdit

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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2Edit

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)

POTD for 8 JuneEdit

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)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether 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.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revertEdit

Regarding your revert, you've reverted a similar change last time when Alucard 16 preformed one. I talked to you about this and exaplined that the move is correct per WP:NCTV, after-which you said you'll raise the issue. You didn't and as it currently stands, you are just exercising some strange WP:OWNERSHIP and preventing a single sub-set of a group of pages to be WP:CONSISTENT with literally every other television and Big Brother related page, with no backing of any guideline, but your personal preference. Very disappointing. --Gonnym (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11Edit

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. WBGconverse 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. WBGconverse 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:AN. Otherwise, the relevant guideline is 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)

DYK Clear template in prepsEdit

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)

The Secret Life of Pets 2 (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

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)

Two Owsley articles/McKinseyEdit

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)

Unprotecting for nowEdit

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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18Edit

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)

Rights or wrongsEdit

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)

Inappropriate close revertEdit

This and this were completely inappropriate since you did not follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, specifically discussing it with me and if necessary initiating a move review. The first was a supervote. Reverting the move until any necessary implementation adjustments could be made would have been one thing; however, reopening the discussion was out of process. On top of that, ugly red errors messages is a completely insufficient description of whatever you were seeing. Finally, you didn't even have the courtesy to even notify me. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:19, 25 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)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nick van den BergEdit

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)

Queue 5Edit

Hi, the last hook in this set was being discussed at WT:DYK#Prep 5: Prisoner when you promoted the set to the queue. He was jailed for 13 years, not 12, as confirmed by all the sources. I also added it to the article text. Please change "twelve" to "thirteen". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

Precious anniversaryEdit

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 cabal of the outcast, the principal writer of Kafka blocked, 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)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

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

  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.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletterEdit

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 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) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The songEdit

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)

Root Insurance CompanyEdit

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)

Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Lee StevensEdit

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)

Thanks for the closeEdit

But the consensus at Talk:Bougainville_campaign#Requested_move_24_June_2019 also applies to Norwegian Campaign, which you maybe didn't notice. Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@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)

Can we delete a mis-spelt redirect page?Edit

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 Nunavut: Nunavat.

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 Nunavat re-direct page were deleted, and then an editor used "Nunavat" as a link, it would immediately come up as a redlink, alerting the editor that there was a problem.

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)

Your good nameEdit

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 Golden Age of Hollywood and Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum cross-border television eras, onscreen and off, cannot stress it enough. Casual racism is the worst there is, the worst there was and the worst there ever will be. Equally true to this, people have a hard time believing I mean things like this, simply because I'm "always on" with regard to speaking in riddles and referencing old school ephemera far more liberally than I do scholarly academic articles. I'm blacklisted from performing at the Ref Desk, partially because of that, partially in solidarity with an oppressed StuRat and partially because of "creative differences", but never for telling a racist joke (Indian burns don't count, I was half-reared by Algonquin in the forest, nothing crude or mean). My "serious mental problems" are more in the style of Homer Simpson (smiling politely) Too much TV, junk food, beer, weed, rock music, marital turmoil and sweet glorious head trauma!

Can you, in 2019, forgive me for being born a simple oaf whose only "real mistake" was getting into the entertainment business because he hated children? If not, can I least get some feedback on whether you thought I implied you should have a slave name instead of a stage name? Not that I'm so insecure in my tolerability that I need validation of my non-racist status card from the first black guy I potentially inexcusably insult, but just out of common decency? Please?

Even if I've just dug myself deeper by putting this wall of dry text between us and you never want to fool around again, I'll understand. But like that nice Jewish boy in South Park, I learned something today. "Amakuru" was never hard to pronounce, or about skin colour or the friends we made along the way. It's not one village, one river or any one of us rowing down this drain called life. Not me, not you, not the feelings in the subcockles of our hearts. Amakuru just fundamentally and basically stands for that one question it always has, the one we ask every morning, evening and underneath the moon. Transcends cultures and beliefs, tragedy and comedy, light and shadow, ladies and gentlemen:

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)

Your accusation of vandalismEdit

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)

Regarding your Venezuelan clashes closeEdit

Sorry to bother you. I believe there was a consensus at Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising#Requested move 6 June 2019 to move the page to "30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes"; I counted 8 support !votes and 4 oppose !votes, with the arguments in favor of moving at least as strong as those against.

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)
@Davey2116: yes I hope so! And thanks, yes it was a great day out. I was on No. 1 Court, rather than Centre Court, so didn't see the big match between Federer and Djokovic, but I did get to see the mixed doubles and 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 dead bodies... at least twice in close up, probably a lot more from even a slight distance. Some of the dead bodies were mutilated into works of art. We've had artworks including male full-frontal nudity, and more breasts than I can count. If you had asked me, I would have pointed this all out to you. I really, really wish you had done so. Try to do better in future? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@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. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all 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? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all 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 3Edit

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 fromEdit


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

Return to the user page of "Amakuru".