Open main menu


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).

Accusations of libel?Edit

Hi Vanamonde, user:Mhhossein accused me of inserting "defamatory material" to an article, but all I did was add information backed by a source approved at RSN. Is this not "tossing around accusations of libel" as you said in your last warning? Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're seeking for by such sort of reports and comments. last warning included portions such as " WP:BLP is not to be treated lightly; coverage of living people not only needs to be sourced to reliable sources, it needs to reflect all major viewpoints among reliable sources." By the way, just like the other editor said, I suggest you to avoid labeling edits of a newbie as slanderous. --Mhhossein talk 13:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Mhhossein, you cannot repeatedly make false accusations against other editors. This makes the process of working towards consensus disruptive and very negative. Vanamonde was the last admin to warn you, saying "tossing around accusations of libel isn't acceptable". Even here you are not addressing or taking back what you said. This is a legitimate concern for me, this is why I'm brining this here. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a somewhat subtle distinction here; all libelous material violates BLP, but not all BLP-violating material is libelous. Mhhossein should not be making accusations of libel, but Alex, if there's concerns over the source quality, you do need to take them seriously. I would strongly suggest you both try to reach a consensus on what reliable sources say about this individual; genuinely libelous material should be reported to the oversight team. More broadly, though, there's far too much antagonism and too little effort to build consensus on the talk page. You both obviously have different strong opinions about the topic in question. The way to get around that is to constrain the talk page discussion strictly to specific content issues, and take any allegations of misbehavior to a different forum. Please keep in mind that the longer these disputes drag on, and the more personal they become, the more likely it is that everyone on that page will face a draconian sanction, either from the community or from ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: When you say "Mhhossein should not be making accusations of libel", it means that Mhhossein have made "accusations of libel" and he should stop it. This is while I was making it clear for the other party that the content was defamatory and that the BLP issue was serious. You can count the number of RFCs and subsections I have opened on the talk page. Please notice that my last edit to the page dates back to 2 days ago, while others are making reverts on a daily basis. --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Mhossein, as I've said before, I am not going to get into a comparative analysis of each editor's behavior, because nobody's hands are clean. If there are problems with an editors behavior that are serious enough to sanction (adding libelous content is definitely one of those), you need to first warn them, and then report it. If it's not that serious, you need to maybe leave them a friendly note, and then ignore it. What you (and several others) have done on that page is to continually criticize behavior; whereas the only real way to sort out such a contentious mess is to focus on content, not behavior. Let the admins deal with the behavioral issues; and make that easier for them by making sure your own conduct is absolutely above board. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, a source is approved at RSN, and so I include it in the article, and Mhhossein then accuses me of "restoring defamatory material" (but does not support this accusation, there or here, with any evidence), is this a behavior issue? or is this behavior ok? Alex-h (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh for Christ's sake. No, that behavior is not okay. That's why I told Mhhossein it wasn't okay. It also isn't bad enough for me to block him unilaterally, so I didn't do that. Why are you belaboring the point? The thing you should do is ask Mhhossein what issue he has with the source. What you do next depends on his response. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde, you said that if there's concerns over the source quality that I should take them seriously, and I just wanted to show you that I had. Also I did ask Mhhossein, but he wont respond. There is no evidence for his accusation, so it is unlikely that he will respond. Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Please go sort this out on the talk page; I've said what I have to say about this particular incident. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Honoring the WP:RSNEdit

Am I right thinking that one should not get away from reverting an edit approved by WP:RSN?--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RSN is not for "approving edits"; it's for establishing consensus about the use of sources that have been challenged elsewhere. Consensus formed at RSN should not generally be ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Christophe JaffrelotEdit

... is apparently the new target [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've had that on my watchlist for a while, but wasn't online when this edit was made. I hope it's a one-off. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Juan GuaidóEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration CaseEdit

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in 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/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United StatesEdit

Please comment on Talk:Central Park jogger caseEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Park jogger case. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019Edit

Deletion review for Bitcoin SVEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitcoin SV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. torusJKL (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian AssangeEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse HostsEdit

Hello. Over at the Teahouse we're having a bit of a 'spring clean' by removing inactive entries from the list of Hosts. As you don't appear to have been very active recently, I have taken your host profile off the list. But please don't let that put you off contributing again in the future - either by signing back up as a Host on a regular basis, or just dropping in whenever you fancy helping out. Thank you for all your past help and support for new users at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

PS - I couldn't help noticing that you've got the caption slightly wrong on your userpage. The photo shows the Matterhorn's east face, with the Hornli ridge on the right, and then the N face even further right. That must be a sunset in the west, not a sunrise in the east. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Fair enough; after becoming an administrator I found enough of my time occupied by requests for assistance elsewhere that I rarely had the time or motivation to return to the Teahouse. Thanks for the tip about the picture. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I remember being half way up the mountain when the sun came up at 6am, so I can speak from personal experience. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Indian general electionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


Would appreciate your input on my talkpage on what can be done. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Demolition of the Babri MasjidEdit

 On 8 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Demolition of the Babri Masjid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Babri Masjid, a mosque built in 1528, was demolished in 1992 after a political rally turned violent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Demolition of the Babri Masjid. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Demolition of the Babri Masjid), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


Would you be so kind to close this AN3 report?--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that it has already been closed, and you are quite lucky that only page protection, rather than some symmetric blocks, was applied. As I've said before, the bunch of you need to focus on reaching consensus, rather than preventing consensus from being reached; if things continue as they are, draconian sanctions are likely to be authorized at one forum or another. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 8 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) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


In opera, you don't say "the part" but "the role", - I thoroughly dislike the hook as something catering to people interested in castrato instead of something substantial about his great roles, but we could at least get this bit right ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

ps: I see it is explained later that it's a role, - how about "appeared as Ernesto ..."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Is "sand the part of" actually wrong? It reads a little bit more naturally to me than "appeared as", although the latter is not wrong, and if there's a technical reason or a strong preference on your part, I can change it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is natural in opera ;) - saying "appeared as" includes that it's not only singing, but acting also. "performed the role" would also work, while "part" doesn't, - in opera speek, that's reserved to instrumental or choral parts. To have "part" and "role" in one hook is double misleading, imho. "portrayed" has been used, but not in the article, - compare the Jennifer Holloway hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've gone with "appeared as" (note that the original did only say "sang", though...) Vanamonde (Talk) 23:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that's more opera speek. Among people who talk opera, "sings" is enough (even in German, same), but if we want to include others, "appeared" (in German "trat auf", - literally "stepped on [the stage]") seems less unclear ;) - By "original" you can't mean the original hook in the nom. - Some days I wish we could run two hooks on the same subject and compare results. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I meant the hook promoted to the queue, which I checked today because I (unusually) had the time. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. BoltonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello my friend !Edit

Good morning.

I contact you because I was banned from modifications on the French Wikipedia ! You'd like to know why ? Because I deleted the discussions on my own page and I put in the Infobox the flags of countries and cities, states, counties ... Some French administrators decided that it was forbidden or not recommended... Then Gemini1980 banned me... I find it unacceptable, this person uses his "power" and his fellow administrators too. I can not do anything against this. What should I do ? What can you do ?

Sincerely TH2M8S aka THOMAS TH2M8S (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@TH2M8S: If you have been blocked on the French wikipedia, you need to go there, figure out what you did wrong, and file an unblock request explaining why the block is no longer necessary. Admins on one Wikimedia project have no jurisdiction on another; nobody outside the French Wikipedia can help you with such a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I can not find a place where I can apply. User:Vanamonde93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH2M8S (talkcontribs) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello TH2M8S. I checked a bit on the French Wikipedia and I also can't see where you can appeal your block. Here, you normally still have access to your talk page and can try to contact the blocking administrator that way (on your French talk page, not here). You should try that first.
But it looks like you were blocked for a good reason. Some users asked you not to add the flags to the infoboxes, and gave you good reasons why adding them makes Wikipedia harder to use for readers with disabilities, and you answered that you were going to do it anyway. If you did that here you would be blocked too. So if you are going to try talking to the administrators on French Wikipedia, start by explaining that you know that what you did was wrong and that you will not do it again.
Best wishes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@TH2M8S, Vanamonde93, and Ivanvector: Very difficult to find, but it's at fr:Modèle:Déblocage:

Pour demander un déblocage, ajoutez {{déblocage}} à votre page de discussion.

I did not see this mentioned in any article about blocking policy on fr-wiki. Poorly done doc pages. I've requested an update to their Block page to include it. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests.

March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.

May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RojavaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox TherapyEdit

Hi Vanamonde93. Would you unsalt Unbox Therapy? You were the closer of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy and wrote, "I am personally willing to grant this, but please ask BethNaught, who protected this, first." My request nine months ago at User talk:BethNaught/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy has not been answered. Would you also undelete Draft:Unbox Therapy which was deleted in April 2019 as an abandoned draft? Pinging DRV nominator Thivierr (talk · contribs) so that Thivierr is aware of this request. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Vanamonde93".