Open main menu

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17


Changing hook without discussionEdit

May I ask why you changed this hook without discussion or notifying anyone involved? Did you read the sources and the nomination page? -Zanhe (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: the hook was inaccurate, and didn't reflect the article, as it said he was "knighted". I understand the point that the Tan Sri is equivalent to a knighthood, but that doesn't mean it's the same as one, or that it's correct to use the word knighted. I think the current wording works OK, but if you prefer to pull the hook to discuss it further we can do that. It can't go on the main page with terminology that isn't used in the article or the source though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The hook was accurate and did reflect the article (which mentions Tan Sri is a Malaysian knighthood), and it's been thoroughly discussed in the nomination process with multiple sources provided. The awarding of "Tan Sri" is frequently referred to as "knighting" in media, government, and academia. See this book and National Library of Singapore, in addition to the sources already presented in the article and nomination page. What's concerning to me is that you saw it fit to override consensus among multiple editors and use your admin privilege to change the hook in queue without discussion, and without bothering to notify anyone involved. -Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep promotions to queueEdit

Hi, since we've been a little slow in loading preps, I wonder if you could keep two queues filled at all times and not promote a third? Queue 4 has some problems that need to be fixed, but it was promoted shortly after it was filled. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah, the only thing is we usually like to have the whole of tomorrow's main page loaded up during the day so that those looking out for errors have time to spot them and for them to be acted on before going live. During times when we're doing two sets a day, that may mean having three sets in the queue for some of the morning. Obviously if work is ongoing that would have to wait, but in this case Prep 4 had been marked as completed for several hours by the time I promoted it to the queue... Maybe we can discuss at the project what's optimal around this, obviously I appreciate you guys put in a lot of hard work into this and that there may need to be chopping and changing of preps.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand. It's just that it looks like we're down to Cwmhiraeth and myself building preps. If 97198 or SL93 could help out a bit more, we could have more preps ready for you. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I can help out more, but I really wish that DYK could somehow get more promoters. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, SL93. We were doing okay when it was only one prep set a day. Looks like we might go back to that soon. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I could also try to muck in here and there when I have the time, but it wouldn't be guaranteed. Is it promoting approved nominations and inserting them into preps where there's a shortage, rather than reviewing the backlog of nominations?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say that the shortage is for promoting approved nominations rather than reviewing the backlog. Right now, there are mainly only two editors who move the approved nominations to the prep areas, but I did just help fill two sets. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognitionEdit

Sir, I didn't get the ITN recognition for updating Kiran Nagarkar. I was advised by DBigXRay to come to you regarding this [1]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: you're welcome, and apologies that it was late - actually it wasn't even that the browser failed to save, I just didn't notice that your name was listed as an updater of the article unfortunately. Cheers, and thanks for the good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you sir. I was feeling so embarrassed asking you. Thank you again. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chester WilliamsEdit

 On 9 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chester Williams, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 02:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

An FYIEdit

It is my opinion that The Rambling Man's reform thread at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles was not created in good faith. He has had a history of following me around to cause trouble, and is using VA as an attempt to goad me into doing something he can take me to ANI or another noticeboard for. He is repeatedly making inaccurate or uninformed statements about the Vital Articles project, and he's collecting diffs of mine, which is something nobody who was acting in good faith would do. I'm sorry you've been sucked into his pissing contest. pbp 22:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It is my opinion that (once again) I'm trying to bring the odd VA project to people's attention. The collection of diffs is simply to collate the personal attacks from PBP (once again). No pissing (I just went). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. There's NO SUCH THING as a "history of following [PBP] around to cause trouble" so I suggest that is removed or we can go straight to ANI to sort it out once and for all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Asking you to refrain from making inaccurate statements at VA is not a personal attack. Nothing I have done is a personal attack. The only thing that is a personal attack is you using VA to settle scores with me, which is what you're doing. If you weren't settling scores, you wouldn't be collecting diffs. I will not retract any of my edits, because they are true and not personal attacks. pbp 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty clear now that you don't know what constitutes a personal attack, hence why my diffs are so important. Sorry Amakuru, you did your best I suppose! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I never received any sort of acknowledgement that you'd seen the concerns I had about TRM's behavior. pbp 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: apologies, I thought given the dialogue above that you and TRM had resolved the matter and did not require any intervention from me. I have no comment on your accusation that TRM followed you around and started the conversation at WT:VITAL for non-good-faith reasons. If you have concerns on those grounds, I'd have thought WP:ANI would be the place to go with details of the whole history and specific evidence. I don't really have any knowledge of the matter myself, and don't really have the time to go through it now.
    I can't really fault TRM for starting the discussion itself, though. I think it is a conversation that needs to be had, for the reasons I set out as part of the discussion - as much as it could be an enjoyable exercise for some editors to curate and categorise articles into varying levels of "vitality", and having such a list is useful where an arbitrary set of important articles is required, e.g. WP:The Core Challenge, the scope of the project should not go any further than that. In particular, the "vital" or otherwise status of an article should have no bearing on discussions raised elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding notability, naming, or any other policy matter. TRM is absolutely right that the small size of the editor pool in the Vital articles project make it unfit for such purposes.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    But the thing is, a lot of things on Wikipedia have problems with low participation. Some of those play for higher stakes than VA does. Why focus only on VA? pbp 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    I focus on all aspects of Wikipedia which may be exposed to our readers which may mislead them or give them false information. Hence my interest in parts of the main page (OTD, DYK, TFL, TFA, TFP), in the major article quality aspects (e.g. GAN, FLC, FAC) and areas which may inadvertently misrepresent Wikipedia's goals. No other areas of Wikipedia claim such a bombastic title of "vital", particularly when "vital" is selected by a sub-fractional number of users, usually the same ones. My behaviour here is simply to ensure our readers get the service they deserve when reading an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    And yet you've only made a few edits to VA ever, with all of them coming within a day or two of me making edits, usually a string of them. And many of your comments about VA indicate a lack of understand of the project; some are flat-out inaccurate. I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously about VA reform; it should start with somebody who has a better understanding of the project and less of a history of bullying and threatening me. pbp 15:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps because you're "in it" you can't see how intractable it is to contribute to it. And any lack of understanding of a project which self-declares as "vital" is probably down to the fault of the project given my experience here. And finally, don't forget that I don't care if you take me seriously or not. That doesn't make any difference at all. As for your final throwaway, I won't even dignify it, other than to advise you against continuing to cast aspersions unless you are prepared to go to WP:ANI. Because take this as your "final thought", if you continue to cast aspersions, I'll see you there. Time for an IBAN I think. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Advice not taken; why would I take advice about aspersions from a guy who's under sanction essentially for casting them about anybody and everybody? Also, IBANs are two-way, buddy. Were we to be I-banned, you'd be forbidden from responding directly to any comment I make at VA or anywhere else, and also forbidden from re-factoring my comments or edits anywhere. pbp 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, it wasn't advice, it was fact. If you can't stump up your evidence to support your aspersions, we'll request them via ANI. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Alright guys, leaving your differences aside for a moment, are there any actual tangible issues concerning VA that require us to act or make a decision? As I've said above, I'm personally fine with VA existing within its own little realm, as a project page, and for use in situations where people actively opt in to it, e.g. WP:The Core Challenge. I also think it would be concerning, if the vital status of an article were used in other debates elsewhere to prove a point. I'm not sure if there is any suggestion the latter has occurred though. A hatnote on the WP:VA page explaining that it may not represent fully vetted community consensus, similar to what we put at the top of a WP:ESSAY page, as TRM suggested, would probably be useful but I wouldn't insist on that if there's a lot of resistance.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, VA is a great mini-project for those handful involved in it, but it is essential that it is somehow marked that it's not the Wikipedia community that deems the articles being selected and deselected there almost daily as being "vital" in any community-agreed sense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think that kind of a hatnote is unnecessary. Comparing VA to an essay seems off; essays generally serve different purposes than VA does. A VA designation isn't like protection; it doesn't restrict the editing of a designated article (and, of course, protection isn't enacted by the kind of community consensus you demand). And I'm not buying this idea that VA somehow doesn't represent "fully vetted community consensus". It represents more community consensus than a rating from any other WikiProject does (most assessments are conducted by single editors; I myself have re-assessed hundreds of articles) and it usually represents more of a community consensus than an article does. Remember, you need at least five editors to agree; very few things require the agreement of that many editors. Do you, like, want an RfC for every change to the list? That's unnecessary and unworkable. And if we put the whole list to a big vote we'd have people voting no even though they liked 90% of the list but disapproved of a small portion. Furthermore, I think people are too hung-up on the use of the word "vital"; I'm not buying into this idea that somehow we have to play by stricter rules just because we use the word "vital". Finally, the assertion that articles are added or removed "almost daily" is yet another TRM misunderstanding of the VA project he's trying to change without really understanding. If you were to compare the Lv 3 or Lv 4 list now from what it was a year ago, you'd find that it was relatively stable. pbp 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Keep up with the accusations, noted. As for your opinion on an outside view of VA: you're on your own. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    I will not back away from my observation that you've made inaccurate statements about VA. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't have made inaccurate statements. pbp 17:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    You're on your own. Let me know when you will provide the information to back up your WP:ASPERSIONS or we can continue this at ANI. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    I already explained why you were inaccurate: you claimed that articles are promoted and demoted at VA on an "almost daily" basis; I countered by saying that VA 3 and VA4 have been relatively stable in the past year. If you want a diff, here’s one. And you're clearly not going to take me to ANI, or else you'd have done it days ago. You know full well that if this goes to ANI, you're the one getting sanctioned. pbp 17:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your diff is in no way a useful counter-claim to what I have said. But it's immaterial, as you're on your own there. But what is 100% fact is that you have cast aspersions, in numerous locations, at numerous user talk pages, you have accused me of following you after pinging me, and you have made numerous personal attacks in the past few days. It is now down to you to provide me with diffs backing your aspersions, or I will ask for them at ANI, along with providing the community with the multiple personal attacks you have levelled at me and the aspersions you have cast. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Firstly you started critical discussion about VA project (ok, maybe you just"tried" understand what VA is, okey... but where later was"good faith"?), secondly you make edit with description "trying to help" but finally you wrote your honest viewpoint and engaging here. If you had good faith and you were trying to help (I try belive, I hope you stil have so) why among many options to productive solutions you chosed jut a sentence "daring to even question anything here is not worth the resulting indignation.", why you did not suggested something other? You could say that for example vital article project can revolve around automating classification of article importance which would be later very useful for Small Wiki Monitoring Team or something other like WP:Core Challenge? Level 3 and 4 are stabile, these ones were edited by multiple editors for years what was even agreed here by Casliber, and nowhere is wroten: vital articles is consensus of "whole" community of the Wikipedia becaue of nothing is consensus of "whole" community of Wikipedia one the Wikipedia. If we are going to make more general discussions what else can improve project VA I belive we should make discussions about another project on Wikimedia (Nettrom kept me relevant message here and FWIHW he is now alone in that project on Wikimedia because of second one constributor now is not active in Wikimedia) or about that WP Challenge. Cheers for all (with good faith). Dawid2009 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, the problems started when editors started quoting "vitality level" as some kind of pass at ITN, that was problematic. I'm not sure why everyone is fixated with levels 3 and 4 "vital articles", I don't believe I have ever referred to those, whether those are somehow considered "stable" or not is not really relevant. They have still been picked by a microscopic fraction of a percentage of users and self-declared as "vital" to the project (and by inference, to our readers). It has since become obvious that there is no obvious disclaimer that makes this clear to anyone, let alone our readers. I think your questions about the hostility with which my comments at the project have generally been received speak for themselves. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    TRM, we'd take your reforms more seriously if you didn't ground them in hostily and exaggeration. pbp 20:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's just you alone here complaining about me, so "we'd take your reforms"?? Nope, you're on your own. As soon as you've backed up your WP:ASPERSIONS with the required diffs where I "bullied" and "threatened" you here, we can move on. In the meantime, I'm not interested in anything you have to say. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well getting back on track - the core topics seem to have been created by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and its earlier incarnations for an offline version of wikipedia. I have no idea if these are still active. For some reason the core topics and vital articles were seen as separate. I will try and ask Jaranda/Secret who I can get in touch with readily. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the core bios project is dead and has been for several years. I'll poke around and help you out on who to talk to about having core bios hosted by the VA project from hereon out. Since V 1.0, technology has moved in a direction to render a successor project to V 1.0 obsolete. When V 1.0 was done, people were still using CDs and not really using smartphones. Now, most people have smartphones, but few have devices that can take a CD. pbp 20:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The CD to smart phone ratio is probably still high in some parts of the world, from my experience, although it is certainly reducing everywhere. I think the bigger problem for v1.0 was the sheer enormity of the task, insufficient volunteers, the inherent problems with trying to snapshot what is actually a living, breathing, encyclopedia that constantly changes, and a general lack of clarity about what the project hoped to achieve. VA doesn't suffer from as many of these issues, as it is not about sandboxing, and it's pretty much acknowledged that it has no greater purpose than to collate and list the entries. Presumably that makes it easier to work on. As an aside, the necessity of having five votes for changes can be a hindrance at times as well. Sometimes fairly obvious changes fail because the quorum isn't achieved, and that's not because the suggestions don't have consensus, it's just that the VA project doesn't have huge numbers of editors around.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have asked on that page whether it can be marked as 'inactive' or 'historical' was it superceded by "wikipedia in a box"? which I can't find now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: Is this Wikipedia-in-a-box? pbp 21:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes - this was it. I think it did happen...pinging @Doc James:.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So the WP 1.0 was an effort to create a small subset of the core content of Wikipedia. As memory because less and less expensive, this becomes less important for some offline efforts.
We now have Internet-in-a-Box which ships with a 128 Gb microSD card (and can fit all of EN WP)
These are however separate projects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Did you realize that you already cast a !vote at the Talk:Osroene RM? Just a heads up. Station1 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Station1: oh wow, I'd totally forgotten,and didn't notice it when I was reading the discussion... At least I voted the same way both times! That could be a case of great minds think alike; Or else fools seldom differ   Thanks for the heads up, anyway, I've pulled the second !vote  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Amakuru".