User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 6
Non-neutral edits re: Venezuela
[edit]I have serious concerns about your editing, which you have been warned about but continue to engage in:
- (1) You continue to violate WP:BRD, despite being asked repeatedly not to. (e.g. warnings by me and Cmonghost)
- (2) You repeatedly delete well-sourced content--including large sections of content (2-28-19, 4-11-19, 12-29-19, 12-31-19)--without making any serious attempt to revise and improve it. You have already been warned by more than once not to do that but the behavior continues. Warning from Oska:
- I found your removal of the section too radical a response to those concerns. Wikipedia articles that have been created and developed need to be proposed for deletion and a discussion is held before that action is completed. I think the same principle extends (although to a lesser degree) to a section of an article. There is no formal process for deletion of a section but if you think the deletion will be controversial or if you meet resistance to the deletion then I think it's appropriate to back off and discuss how it can be improved or reformed or, if still deemed necessary, make a good case for its deletion.
- Clear explanations from Cmonghost here that it is not appropriate to remove well-sourced material, and that you should be following WP:BRD. That section looks to me like WP:STONEWALLING Warning from me [1]
- (3) You accused me of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing in the edit-summary, where it cannot be removed. Please do not do that. See also: WP:KETTLE.
- (4) You seem to have an agenda regarding Juan Guaido. In Spanish Wikipedia you were part of the this edit war described here putting Guaido as the President of Venezuela rather than follow the WP:RS. One of your edit here.
- (5) You are acting a lot like a WP:SPA. your top edited articles by working primarily on articles about Guaido, Maduro and the dispute over who is the president of Venezueala
- (6) non-neutral editting strongly favoring material that is supports Guaido's (and the opposition's) positions and disfavoring material that supports Maduro's positions. I understand you are Venezuelan, and have a no doubt have an interest and a personal POV about that subject, but please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia following the WP:RS and must put our personal views on the matter aside in our editing and follow the WP:RS.
- (7) Your have made a number of votes at WP:RS/N to declare a number of sources unreliable, sources that were formerly considered acceptable. What many of these sources have in common is one thing: They have been critical of Guaido, supportive of Maduro, critical of U.S. interference in Venezuela and U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, etc. This is troubling not just because it may bias the Venezuela related articles, but it removes sources that can be quite useful in matters completely unrelated to Venezuela and U.S. politics. As I opined in WP:RS/N:
- I agree we need to stop these RfC's that are eliminating all WP:RS that is critical of U.S. regime change efforts in Venezuela. The same group of editors who dominate the Venezuela pages (e.g. [2]) have been eliminating these sources one-by-one with their !iVotes and often citing a connection to or supportive views of Maduro, e.g. Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR),TeleSUR, Venezuelanalysis, Grayzone, HispanTV.
I urge you to change your editing behavior to address these concerns. I am seriously thinking about taking your editing behavior to WP:COI/N, WP:AN/I, or some other appropriate noticeboard if these problems persist. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are a lot of things to break down here, so I'll do my best to reply each point and dividing my reply in two sections:
- (1) There are sometimes when I do respond to a revert with another revert, or sometimes add or change my edit when appropriate. When I do, I always try to explain my reasons or concerns in the edit summary, based on policies or guidelines. When that happens, and if I am reverted for a second time, specially I try to develop these reasons, arguments or concerns further in the article's talk page. What is important for me is not being disruptive, doing well-founded contributions, so the question amounts to if there is edit warring. As far as I know, I have not violated restrictions such as WP:1RR and have shown a willingness to discuss.
- BRD is
an optional method of reaching consensus
.This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks
, andIn other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised.
. This does not mean that I'm ignoring the principle, as since I have learned about it I recognize its importance, but I think it's important to note thatBRD does not encourage reverting
and that the D of discuss should also be respected.
- BRD is
- (2) When I have removed referenced content, it is not when it is not "well-sourced". You can see that in each one of the edit summaries I provide an explanation, like I stated before, including WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but the most important one to bear in mind is WP:ONUS, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. A particular example that should be remembered is one of your last reverts to replace "back" with "orchestrated", a loaded and non neutral term, contrary to WP:LABEL.
- I find it worrisome that you use diffs in the span of ten months to try to demonstrate a pattern. The first diff is not a removal, but hiding the text. The second diff consists in a section of four paragraphs that rely on a single source; not exactly "well-sourced" content, without mentioning issues with original research. In the third diff you make mention of "
U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019
", without mentioning which these have been; you use the adjective "crippling", violating WP:NPOV, and use an opinion article to support the content. Lastly, the last diff consists in content that I added myself (which I should mention, I regret that you don't recognize as an attempt to find an agreement), the only reason why I removed it were the complaints in the talk page that there should not be an "Accusations" title.
- I find it worrisome that you use diffs in the span of ten months to try to demonstrate a pattern. The first diff is not a removal, but hiding the text. The second diff consists in a section of four paragraphs that rely on a single source; not exactly "well-sourced" content, without mentioning issues with original research. In the third diff you make mention of "
- You forget to mention, consider, or in best scenario notice, that I commented on my participation in the opened RfC, provided an extensive explanation about the removal that Oska referred to in the respective section, namely that the section was based in a SPA edit that was completely unreferenced, I apologized if "my edit was seen as too radical" and showed my willingness to help with the section. I should add that Oska's comment was not a "warning"; they didn't template me with a predetermined message in my talk page and were quite civil when talking about the issue. Tone matters.
- While we are at it, since you are accusing me of STONEWALLING, can you explain to me how "substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions have been inadequate to legitimately oppose the change"?
- All this being said, I couldn't help but notice that you left me this comment just hours after I started a RfC to assess the reliability of The New Republic. This makes me to worry about that this comment was not motivated by disruptive editing allegations, or a repeated failure to engage in discussion, but rather my questions to the community overall. You proceed to make baseless accusations pointing out to broad assumptions and offering nearly no diffs at all, effectively engaging in a straw man fallacy. I will proceed to address them:
- (4) It is ludicrous that you accuse me of having an agenda by quoting an incident that happened a year ago, not to mention in the Spanish and not the English Wikipedia, and you appear to show worrying ignorance about the situation. If you really want to go into depth: Efecto Cocuyo's article mentions 37 times changes (not reverts) in two hours, of which only five were mine: adding a date and an acronym, adding the category "Presidents of Venezuela", adding the predecessor parameter in the infobox, and adding a numeral; Only the last one was a revert of a user reverted three times three different users and removed referenced content.
- Did you get to read the article's version before the edit war? It's interesting that you accuse me of not following WP:RS when at the time the article had a section with five reliable sources supporting the claim, and my revert was precisely to restore the referenced content, not to add unreferenced content or to push for a POV. Did you read the talk page of the article and my afterwards proposals? I wasn't the only editor to believe sources supported the inclusion, after administrators intervened there was a thread afterwards that helped to shape the article.
- What would you say if I were to point out at the several canvassing warnings you have received and draw conjectures on them?[7][8][9][10] Or that you were once blocked to enforce a topic ban? I could add that in the last week you have usually appeared in controversial discussions just to comment your agreement with a previous comment (WP:ILIKEIT) [11][12][13], without contributing with further input or seeming to have read previous threads, and it seems that this is not the first time you do this ([14][15][16][17]). It may also be good for you to look at WP:KETTLE.
- (5) If you are familiarized with WP:SPA, you should know that editing in a single broad topic does not amount to a being single purpose account.
When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA.
- Wikipedia:EDITCOUNTITIS has already been cited to you as an example of the problem of naming the number of edits predominant factor in edit behavior. In the articles with my largest edit count, most of the time I barely amount to 10% of the content added (Venezuelan presidential crisis, 2019 Bolivian political crisis, Venezuelan protests (2014–present), Juan Guaidó). The exceptions are the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests and the 2018 Venezuelan presidential election articles, with 19.7% and 35.2% respectively, whose events took place way before Guaidó was in the spotlight.
- I invite you to take a look at my list of created articles, look at my edit history before 2018, or evaluate my editions based on content added and not number of edits. Hopefully you'll get a different picture. I have been editing for almost six years now, and my activity spans to other projects, including Commons, Wikisource and the Spanish Wikipedia.
- (6) You are not offering any example or diff to show how I am violating WP:NPOV or going against reliable sources. In the English Wikipedia there is plenty of "negative" content or reception about Guaidó that is well referenced, have stayed in the articles and which I have not attempted to remove because of the same reason, they're compliant to WP:NPOV. I have also included "negative" when needed; for example, when the embezzlement scandal came to light, I was the first editor to add it to the article.
- (7) You should know that WP:RS/N is based on arguments and not on "votes", a misconception that you seem to have. If sources have been determined to be unreliable it is not because they have a specific editorial line, but rather because they have been demonstrated to not report accurately. If you disagree with this and can offer a rebuttal, you can always start another RfC explaining your case and why you believe the reference should not be considered unreliable. On the other hand, I am not the only editor being accused of starting this discussions in bad faith, so if you ever get to go to a noticeboard make sure to notify them as well.
- I believe that being WP:BOLD in controversial topics usually results in disagreements, and I'm open to learn about any wrongdoing I may engage in. This has happened many times, but it is much easier when the editor pointing this out is civil when they do.
- I have told you in the past that I found your tone growingly hostile, and I have asked you to refrain from this, since it makes any discussion harder to progress and it may amount to personal attacks. When I cited WP:TENDENTIOUS it was in a specific edit summary and I referred to the specific section where the issues went further.
- You have gone a step further and went from complaining to me of not following WP:BRD and WP:RS to accusing me of having a WP:AGENDA, of having a WP:SPA, violating WP:NPOV and deliberately attempting to remove references from being used in Wikipedia. Like I said, I accept criticism if done in the proper manner. However, doing it in a broad manner, without proving specific diffs, along with the tone of the comments, leads me to interpret the message as nothing more as personal attacks to threaten me or discourage from editing, which is particularly more concerning knowing that in these topics native Spanish speakers that can help with translations and offering local and Spanish sources are needed.
- If you are interested in improving the articles at hand, please share your thoughts in the talk page and the open discussions. If you are convinced that your accusations consists in a pattern that has continued, document them and explain better how to refrain from it. On the contrary, and as I have said before, I will report the attacks in a noticeboard. We may have differences how editors and may look for changing our behaviors, but there's always a correct way to ask. Happy New Year. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Thank you for reading my post and well-considered response. I could go into detail responding to each of your counter-points, but I think the time required going back and forth would better be spent improving the articles. I'll try to be as brief as possible on some of the things that came to mind when I read it:
(1) with BRD / 1RR -- If content starts at X, and you make change Y, someone reverts to back to X, I have seen you revert back to your preferred version of Y without going to the talk page and gaining consensus per WP:BRD. That is highly frowned upon--even if you believe the reversion was unjust or the change X is clearly warranted by policy--as it leads to editwars. (For [[Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism|vandalism reversion], it's probably okay not to strictly follow WP:BRD if it's an IP that just showed up and who is right away blatantly breaking the rules by adding nonsense, deleting or changing good content, adding unsourced content, etc., so that content is suffering. The long-term editors will know what you are up to, and the IP will likely have no knowledge of how to use the talk pages.)
So basically, when the edit is reverted, your proposed change has basically been rejected--and if you still feel your change is warranted, you have to make the case on the talk page and gain consensus. Making an argument that you believe you are right on the talk page, and putting Y back before you gain consensus of other editors does not count. Many editors, even medium term editors, are confused about BRD, and it took me a while to understand it.
I could give you exact examples, but it would be easy to figure out by just reviewing your edits around the time you were accused of not following BRD and see if that is correct.
I am concerned that after citing BRD, you don't show interest in participating in the discussions that develop [34][35]
Not true. Just because I don't respond does not mean I am not interested: It means that I do not see any need to respond at that time for reasons I believe do not need to be spelled out. That's common among editors. We do not like walls-of-text, and not responding is one way to keep a discussion from growing out of control into a wall of text and TL;DR, which is all too common. I could give a list of reasons for stopping, but I hope you get the idea.
As for [34] -- the question was not directed to me.
[35] -- I was aware of the question, but felt the answer depends more on the WP:RS and I had wanted to become more familiar with the RS before taking a position. But, I have responded now.
or responding after I answered a question where you pinged me, at least to confirm that read it.[36][37]
I don't think most editors feel such an obligation. I can see how it is polite and I will try to do it more for you, but it often adds extra text that may be unnecessary. I don't worry too much about whether editors read what I wrote or not. If they never respond, then I decide what to do with the new situation where their attention may not be on that article. Also, the ping isn't always because I am seeking discussion--it often is just to make you are aware of the interested text when I feel it is helpful or mandatory for me to let you know.
[36] -- Thank you for answering the question. I am not sure why you expected me to respond. When you put a tag such as POV issues or Accuracy issues at the top of a significant article, it is good practice (and probably expected) to create a talk page entry explaining why you templated the article. Tag & run is often frowned upon.
I did look at your answers, and I put that discussion on hold for myself. I have no idea exactly when I might go back to it--perhaps never. Perhaps other editors will look your concerns in the meantime. The key thing is that when people see the tag, they know what the specific concerns are.
As for expecting answers, this is a joint project. Often what Cmonghost says is exactly my thinking, so I see no reason to repeat it, and I say I agree. That doesn't fall into WP:ILIKEIT. I agree means I agree with the other editor's reasoning.
... Enough for now. Will likely get back to this. That response wasn't nearly as short as I had expected. Thanks again for responding and considering what I had to say. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Fair enough. For now I'll thank you for calling upon third parties and considering a dispute resolution process for the dispute. I feel and hope that there has been a de-escalation of the tensions, and hopefully that will make future exchanges run more smoothly. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
2020 AN election
[edit]I translated 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election, if you want to have a look. Kingsif (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Thank you!! And thank you for including Operation Scorpion as well. I've made some changes and put the last news in the talk page. Let me know if I can help in any other way :) --Jamez42 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Corruption Allegations
[edit]Hi, I have been gathering together resources to give information on those facing charges in Bolivia. I am not too sure if it is suitable material for wikipedia though in case it violates NPOV or some similar policy, but there is a flood of articles from every major Bolivian newspaper on this and English language media seems to take no interest beyond the tantalising idea that there has been a military coup. I mainly read La Razon and Pagina Siete, but I have tried to been getting other resources to avoid only quoting those two sources (I npw periodically look at Los Tiempos and El Deber). I am also finding El Alteno pretty useful as El Alto is traditionally filled with Morales supporters so criticisms of former members of his government are likely to have sound basis if they are making it. Anyway, I am gathering it on my sandbox if you can view that. I guess I have 20-30 other links stored elsewhere and there is no shortage of new material being published. If nothing else, you might find it interesting. Best wishes, Crmoorhead (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Crmoorhead: The policies that you should bear in mind is the policy of biopgraphies of living persons WP:BLP and WP:CRIME. Wikipedia is extra careful with accusations against living people, but if there is major coverage from reliable sources, and specially if the persons in question are public figures, it is completely alright to write about these allegations before there is an indictment or sentence. Only ensure to write neutrally and with attribution, saying where these allegations come from. I can do some copy editing later in your sandbox later if you want to. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Cieneguillas prison riot (Mexico)
[edit]Do you think this is worth writing an article about? Kingsif (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Hi! Definitely, 16 is an important body count, there was a similar incident in Honduras whose article I think has not been created. Let me know if I can help with it if you decide to start it :) --Jamez42 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've started it at Cieneguillas prison riots and have a few more sources to get through. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
AN/I
[edit]FYI. As I warned you, I filed an WP:AN/I report against you for continuing to perform block deletes of contested material: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Simón (2018 film) has been accepted
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Orphaned non-free image File:País portátil poster.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:País portátil poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Community restriction in the South and Latin American topic area
[edit]Hi, Jamez42. I have closed the ANI request concerning you by authorizing a restriction that, while falling short of the topic ban many were calling for, still restricts you in the abovementioned topic area. The restriction is the consensus required limit on all your edits in this topic area. Simply put, if any of your edits are reverted, you are required to gain consensus on the article talk page if you wish to challenge these reversions — essentially, a 0RR when you've been reverted and 1RR otherwise. This will still enable you to participate in the topic area, but with the concern of edit warring addressed. This restriction is fixed with a one year duration, but you may appeal it starting in three months from now. Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 15:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
If you still find this sanction confusing after reading the above explanation, I've elaborated further on how it is supposed to work: here. Please feel free to seek further clarifications on how to apply the editing restriction to the topic area, including with real or hypothetical examples. El_C 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @El C: Many thanks for the intervention! I first read about the result in the noticeboard and I had some doubts about when the restrictions applied, but I believe it is clearer in this message. I only have three questions so far, to avoid any violatons of the restrictions and to plan my future editing activity:
- Does the restrictions fall under the 24 hours standard minimum or are they indefinite until the year period ends? I want to use the talk pages and other discussions as means to solve disputes, but I would also like to propose changes with a different, bold and non-disruptive edit.
- The second question is that when mentioning that the topic area in question is "South and Latin American", does this mean "South and Latin America" broadly constructed and any topic related to the geographical region? Or does it mean only South and Latin American politics? In the case of the latter, I would also like to ask if this does not include any span of time, since it isn't specified, or if on the contrary it is about modern politics (eg: 21st century).
- Lastly, does the normal exceptions of the restrictions apply here as well, specifically obvious vandalism? I don't want to rely on exceptions and I want to avoid reverting in any form, but I want to be crystal clear to avoid any possible violations.
- Once again, many thanks in advance and thank you very much for your time :)
- PS: I can move this message to your talk page to centralize it if it is more confortable. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I just read about WP:CRP specifically as a restriction, I guess that would answer the first question? --Jamez42 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jamez42. I'll try to answer your questions in order.
- First, you have no limit on bold edits, just on reverts (including partial reverts — which can get tricky, I realize). The restriction is in force for one year, unless it is successfully appealed earlier. You may revert an edit that isn't a revert itself once every 24 hours per article (1RR). You may not revert reverts — i.e. re-revert— or revert back an edit you yourself submitted, failing consensus being reached (consensus required).
- Second is a good question. I had in mind the sanction being broadly construed, just in the interest of simplicity (so as to limit borderline instances). Sorry for not making that clear from the outset. That's my bad.
- Third, yes, you are exempt per any of the reasons outlined at WP:3RRNO, including but not limited to vandalism, BLP, copyrights violations, and so on.
- Hope this makes the sanction easier to navigate. Again, please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions, now or in the future (if you're in doubt, asking is the safest thing to do). El_C 01:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti
[edit]
On 14 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election
[edit]
Hello! Your submission of 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election 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) 00:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- In future, please use {{y}} and {{n}} to indicate your support or non-support of DYK hooks if you are not reviewing them for the project. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
February with Women in Red
[edit]
.jpg)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
[edit]
Hello NoonIcarus,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti
[edit]
On 15 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Carlos Vives once invited Paraguayan violinist Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti to play with him on stage after she tried to sneak into his concert without a ticket? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti), 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020 at Women in Red
[edit]
   Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Pelicula Venezolana Lejos de Casa
[edit]Hola amigo james, si conozco la fuente maduradas, como podemos contactarnos para que me ayudes con el articula de mi pelicula Venezolana Lejos de casa ? saludos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.203.30.129 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Lejos de casa
[edit]Me gustaria conversar contigo amigo, cómo podemos hacer? En alguna red social. Saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinafilm (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Latinafilm: Un fuerte abrazo. En la barra lateral izquierda, mientras se está en esta página, debería aparecer la opción de "Email this user". Allí se pueden intercambiar correos con tranquilidad. ¡Saludos cordiales! --Jamez42 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red
[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Change of username
[edit]Some users in French Wikipedia were concerned that my username was associated with Chinese politics. I hope my new name does not bring problems with Proust haters. As we interact often enough, I wanted to let you know. Best regards.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ReyHahn: Personally I would probably give more weight to your edit history, and you have been an experienced editor for some time now :) Many thanks of letting me know! --Jamez42 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
March 2020 indictment of Nicolás Maduro by the United States
[edit]Hi, because of the news that we heard 3 days ago. Is it possible for us and with other Wikipedians to create an article regarding the 2020 indictment of Nicolás Maduro and 4 others. I will try to find sources in order to build the article. Thank you --cyrfaw (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are invited to contribute in this page: User:Cyfraw/Indictment of Nicolás Maduro. I will include the background, the events plus the reactions. After the article is created you can translate to Spanish. --cyrfaw (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
DYK for 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election
[edit]On 11 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Juan Guaidó, president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, tried to climb over a fence to vote in the 2020 committee elections after being blocked from entering the building? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election), 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) 00:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
"Protests" article
[edit]Hello, Jamez42! I wanted to let you know why I reverted your move of the article Protests over responses to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic to Protests in the United States over responses to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. There was nothing wrong with your move; you didn’t break any rules. But it’s best to discuss such a move at the talk page and get agreement among everybody what the title ought to be - rather than just moving it unilaterally. I have started a discussion there; please participate. It looks to me as if you wanted to either give the article a more global approach, or else break it up into multiple articles for different parts of the world. Let’s discuss that too. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Hi! Sorry for taking long, I was editing in the Spanish Wikipedia. I thought about asking in the talk page at first, but I thought that the move could be non-controversial and thought that it would be a good solution for the situation; sorry if it wasn't the best call! Like I mentioned in the talk page, I also support having an article with a worldwide view. I tried including some sections in the article, but it's very likely that there is more content remaining to be added.
- Thank you very much for your message. Please let me know if I can help somehow else! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- You definitely can. For example I like your idea of including international protests, if they are in fact happening elsewhere. (I wish I had a dollar for every time I have found myself saying "But I thought it would be non-controversial!" Happens to all of us.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 at Women in Red
[edit]
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Venezuela
[edit]For the record, I consider consensus to be extremely complicated when the options come down to A or B and there are not more details, but I'll try. By the way, I expect the same zeal from you in Nicolás Maduro's article, where I'm going to put the image previous to the discussion right now.--Baprow (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Baprow: What I found disruptive was the lack of response from you. Even if it is difficult to achieve it, still try communicating and telling your reasons of why you believe the change should be done. I wish you the best for the discussion; best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
OneClickArchiver used the old archive name stated in the archiving instructions at the time. I have updated the name so automatic archiving should work now.[18] Archiving bots will just omit archiving when the name doesn't match. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter: Ah, I understand. I was scratching my head over it and worrying if the tool would be reliable in other articles. I will mind this in the future, thank you very much! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jamez42, I'm writing about your recent edits (1, 2) to the article. There has been no discussion on the talk page—let alone consensus reached—about removing non-PCR tests from the table. Other countries are also combining PCR tests and rapid diagnostic tests (e.g., Nepal). You can't make decisions on what types of tests should be reported in the table all by yourself. Such decisions must be made collectively. Also, you have replaced official government data with data reported by a news site. You should know that official data takes precedence. Also, you have replaced more recent May 6 data with older April 22 data. These are the three reasons why I have reverted your edits.
Please don't make such rushed edits to this table in the future. The parent page that transcludes it is linked from the main page and has been viewed ~700,000 times over the past 30 days. In other words, it is a high-profile article, and you should be extra-careful when editing it.
Thank you! — UnladenSwallow (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @UnladenSwallow: Dear UnladenSwallow, thank you very much for your explanation. I want to clarify that I'm not looking forward taking decisions, let alone imposing them, but rather I used the edit summary as an explanation of the rationale of why to the changes were done, per WP:BOLD. This was the same rationale that I used when I introduced Venezuela to the section.
- However, I completely understand the concerns to have the best version possible for such a high-profile article. I'm hoping to ask about the situation and discuss with the rest of the editors involved in the near future regarding this issue. I'm at your disposal in case I can help with anything else.
- Best regards! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Lejos de Casa: Exodo Venezolano for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lejos de Casa: Exodo Venezolano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lejos de Casa: Exodo Venezolano until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 at Women in Red
[edit]June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Talk:Economy of Venezuela
[edit]Thanks for your comments. I am replying you here because I do not want to go off-topic, even if I believe it is not necessarily off topic because we are still discussing the topic of the article which I hope is being helpful and production (I just do not want to risk or cause any disruption, but I was enjoying discussing this to you and I hope you too); but especially because I am probably going to write a long message and I think it is better if I reply you here and simply send the link on the talk page later. I think we can probably agree or compromise or keeping the first sentence, for a change of wording in one direction or the other would require really strong sources, preferably academic; and a lenghty discussion with as many users involved as possible and a broad consensus; and finally, while I think it can be helpful to start the article directly stating the type of the economy, I believe that should only be done when the aforementioned described procedure has been completed, or when it is self-evident and there is no dispute. It does not seem to be this case.
Said this, I think The Four Deuces can probably give you a simpler and better reply, in more concise and shorter terms, especially about the Bolivarian Missions; and I hope it will. For example, I did not know or I was not sure about the explicit reason behind price controls and I think that undermined your argument, but I will try anyway. Socialism simply is not social programs like Bolivarian Missions; socialism is about capital being owned by labour and those who use, it is about workers controlling the means of production. Many socialists have harshly criticised the use of the state and other authoritarian or undemocratic means in bringing about socialism, so it cannot be simply reduced to the state or social programs. If the Bolivarian Missions are socialist, I do not see why the welfare state cannot be considered socialist, especially if one define capitalism as laissez-faire.
How is expanding health care, free housing and land redistribution socialist by themselves? So apparently simply because the public section is bigger or larger than the private sector, then the economy is socialist? I am sorry but that seems to be rather arbitrary and I do not see why, following this logic, it could not be argued that the post-war consensus and the welfare state was socialist too; or why social democracy in practice, implemented by socialist parties, is not socialist in the same measure. I am sure there are other countries who have strong public sector, high taxes, trade unions and universal, social-democratic welfare states, the Scandinavian countries come to mind; and ironically, they are not considered socialist (which is correct but for the wrong reasons). To me, all this just give the impression that all blame lays on socialism; that socialist policies are failure and will only lead to disasters as happened with the Soviet Union et all and now Venezuela. To me, an economy that still has capitalist markets (I say capitalist because socialism can have a market economy and indeed many early socialists were as vocal anti-capitalists as they were of truly free markets, free from capital privilege over labour; the whole history about socialism has pretty much always been about the means rather than the ends which more or less all socialists agreed), private ownership, profits, stock exchanges, wage labour and so on, an economy that is still predominantly privately-owned, notwithstanding a few nationalisation and the expansion of cooperatives and communal councils; to me that sounds like a capitalist economy. You may argue that the government has severely regulated or limited some of those things but that does not make the economy socialist. If for an economy to be socialist that is all it takes, then the post-war consensus was indeed socialist by this measure and we both know that is nonsense.
To further clarify, since you seem to have rather reductive view of socialism (which seems to be the widespread norm), neither socialism nor even communism are explicity against private property or some form property rights (even Marx and Engels wrote that in The Communist Manifesto); they are opposed to bourgeois or capitalist property and property rights, where one can own property eternally and earn both income and power from it by merely owning it. Socialists want everyone to have property (although it needs to be clarified that while liberals may want the same thing, socialists want the distinction between capitalist and worker to end by making everyone a free producer rather than a capitalist); indeed, The Communist Manifesto explicity made the point how at the time private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population
. Socialists simply want individual or private ownership to be relegated to personal property, small property holdings and self-employment (even anarcho-communists, as was argued by Kropotkin and others, support that); factories, land, capital et all should be cooperatives or collectively owned and managed by the workers and the whole community themselves rather than by one or a few individuals who own the property, often time absently as they may own many other property too and far away; the same thing apply to landlords too (see Absentee landlord).
Finally, I would like to say I am truly sorry for what is happening Venezuela and I wish that your country and hopefully humankind too can have true democracy, a social democracy, a democracy that is widespread in the whole society, extending to the economy, along with politics.--Davide King (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: Hi! I can assure you that I always enjoy this kind of conversations, which is why I fear if my response might not do justice to such a comprehensive and thorough response.
- I want to clarify that I'm looking to use the term "socialism" in a pragmatic sense and to refer to the historic (arguably failed) projects. I am aware of the criticisms that both autocratic and undemocratic have received by thinkers such as Rosa Luxemburg or Bakunin, and that workers should be the ones that take control of the state to implement socialism before dissolving it to implement communism, not by the party or a burocracy, in the strict Marxist theoric sense, although I want to apologize beforehand if I'm mixing up concepts, please let me know if I do. As a side note, I wanted to add Slavoj Zizek's comments on the crisis saying that "The problem with Venezuela’s revolution is that it didn’t go far enough".
- Describing the economy of Venezuela and the ideology of the Bolivarian Revolution can be complicated, and I personally believe that the best term is just Chavismo: Chávez once described himself as a Marxist, only to saying another time that he was not. During his campaign he said that he recognized the "benefits of capitalism" and that he was looking forward a more human one, before admitting in an interview several years later that he believed that he was too naive back then. However, the Venezuelan economy has been described as "socialist" by a significant amount of outlets and scholars alike, including Teodoro Petkoff and Douglas Bravo, just to name a few, among which the former was the found of the Venezuelan Movement to Socialism party.
- I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying that a welfare state is "socialist" by itself given that I have argued that many of the measures that could describe them were already in place in Venezuela before Chávez took power and because of how widespread it is in the Western world. If we can't agree that the expansion of these measures and the application of new related ones are "socialist" (and I apologize once again for the "mainstream" use of the term), maybe we can agree that they are more "socialist" than a welfare state. I forgot to mention and it might be worth noting, albeit I don't think it would add more to the argument, is that the Venezuelan state also controls nearly all of the telecommunications, electricity, tap water and both fuel and cooking gas, along with other utilities. I have to admit that I don't know much about the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, but at first time it appears that it was in effect only for four years. The Ley de Costos y Precios Justos (Just Costs and Prices Law) was enacted in 2011 and is currently in effect, meaning that there have been price controls nine years and counting; seventeen if you consider the currency control that meant that foreign currencies could only be sold by the state in place until not long ago. I think that temporal and limited state intervention is a factor that should be taken into account.
- On the other hand, just for the sake of the discussion, I'll add that interestingly enough some people have commented on the reversal of policies described as "socialist", including price controls and subsidies, and even that the country now has "anarchy" elements, including a lack of the monopoly of violence.
- At the end there will always be misconceptions and half truths, not only regarding the Venezuelan crisis but every controversial situation.
- I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your wishes. Hopefully all the mistakes that have been committed in the past will allow us to learn from them and avoid repeating them. It's always good to know that there are people that empathize with the situation. Best regards! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Francisco Rodríguez
[edit]Hello. Yet again I'm seeing that you are disputing the sources of this article. What is it exactly that you are disputing? Can we discuss the facts and come to a consensus on the writing? Regards, Naldox (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Naldox: Hi; thank you for the message. Despite the effort to improve the article, it still relies heavily on primary sources (including articles written by Francisco Rodríguez, currently 16 out of 41 references, if I'm not mistaken), while there are also a few excerpts that at first sight appear unsourced, which means that the content should be verified. I can try to do this if you wish, but the references should preferrably be replaced by third sources, while the article shouldn't rely too much on the subject's opinion about the situation in Venezuela.
- I think that the issues are easily resolved on its own and by the discussion of both of us, and that WP:DRN isnt necessary, but I'll be happy to start a process if you wish. I've also noticed that. I also noticed that in your revert of the tag, you suggested that my edits in the article could be "politically inclined". I would appreciate that the reasons for these concerns are voiced and discussed before making these accusations.
- Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jamez. I'm sorry for the misundestanding. I labeled the article as "may be politically inclined". I think it is difficult because 13 of those primary sources are academic papers that there is no other way to do a citation. Many are co-authored, so we can see different points of views being discussed in the publishing. I do have a concern with the latest developments, after the Falcon-Maduro election, as they are underrepresented. Rodríguez has just published a paper in SSRN about Bolivia nad he did one on Argentina's debt a couple of months ago.
To be honest, This is my project. Is discouraging to see it labeled without a consultation first. I try (as with all my entries) to be as close to academic and enciclopedic as possible. We can start together a miniproject to revamp this entry. Glad to hear back from you. Naldox (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Naldox: Hi! Sorry for the misunderstanding too. Please understand that in no way this was meant to be personal, maintenance tags are fairly common in Wikipedia and their only objective is to continue improving their content. The bright side is that as time goes on you continue to learn more things on how to write articles. The main question I would ask is if there are there news outlets that have reported on these conclusions? I understand that this is the case with Francisco Rodríguez and that further references could be included, let me know if you need a hand with it. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jamez42: I just did a comparison between Francisco's entry and Ricardo Hausmann. Guess what? Hausmann has 13 papers cited out of 33 references. I'm keeping track on academic economists, since I begin to see a trend between references and papers. Is not that simple. Naldox (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Naldox: I just opened Hausmann's article, at first time it appears to have neutrality issues too, and I don't think that there should be such an extensive focus on his positions or research; it's not the idea to replicate mistakes jsut because other articles have them too. There's an editor, Claravdw, that at its moments seemed to edit extensively in the article, so feel free to tag the article or make some changes if you want too. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the article already states that it relies too much on primary sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jamez42: Agreed. I'm only stating that is not that simple with academic personalities. Naldox (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
You're in the "news"
[edit]Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing mentions you a few times, and has a link to your user page. Hegsareta (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Hegsareta: I noticed after ZiaLater's comments, thank you for letting me know. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
[edit]Hello NoonIcarus,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red
[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for Ángela Jeria
[edit]
On 5 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ángela Jeria, 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. SpencerT•C 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for 2020 Twitter Bitcoin scam
[edit]On 15 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Twitter Bitcoin scam, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
CANF
[edit]Hi, Hi, I edited the previous version made to the Cuban American National Foundation. (This editing was made with information published in several websites, but I also verified this information with the family of Jorge Mas Canosa, and founders of the Cuban American Nat. Foundation. All previous editing are not accurate and not reflect the truth of this organization. Several information published by previous editors are false and defamatory. I would appreciate your help with this, Would you mind letting me know why is my editing worong? If someone want to create a page about opinions or publications about CANF they have the right to do it, but please do not defame the prestige of this institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitelunacanf (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Maitelunacan: I want to clarify that I did not object your edits, and mine was concerned about adding some accents and adding some wording.
- I think it would be important to review the content for any violations of the Biographies of living persons policy. However, if you have been in contact with the relatives of Mas Canosa or members of the CANF, you might also want to check the Conflict of interest policy.
- If you have any doubt or question, please reach out and let me know. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fixing ping @Maitelunacanf:. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your help. I appreciate it. I would appreciate if you can read my final editing.
- All the information was verified and I included references. Im not very familiar to editing in Wikipedia, so if you find something wrong, please let me know. However all that is written is absolutely true and respectful.
- The previous editions had a lot of wrongful information that was written in purpose to defame the mission of the institution and the name of its founder, which is absolutely wrong and outrageous.
- For that reason and following professional ethic as a journalist, I can't accept that. --Maitelunacanf (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the follow up. At first sight, I believe that there are important changes in format and phrasing that should be made so the article can be in accordance of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I also have to express concern regarding the deletion of referenced content: the responses to the disputed content can be included along it, explaining why it has been found to be false and defamatory. Beware of the reference format and of the use of primary sources, too.
- With some corrections and guidance, since the content if referenced, it could be included. I left a message in your talk page with links that could be useful. You can also make further questions in the Teahouse if you wish. Once again, plese let me know if you have further questions. Best regards! --Jamez42 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Global Solar Atlas article improvements
[edit]Hello @Jamez42: thank you for the revision of Global Solar Atlas article a week ago. The article was flagged with maintenance template (pointing to citations for verification and references to primary sources), which was completely relevant for that version of the article. Since then, the article has been improved. Please, in case you find interesting to revise the current status, post your opinion on the article on the talk page and/or consider the removal of the maintenance template. --jurajb 10:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Juraj.betak: Gladly, will do! :) --Jamez42 (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 at Women in Red
[edit]
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for Luchita Hurtado
[edit]On 16 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Luchita Hurtado, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
September Women in Red edithons
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
October editathons from Women in Red
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Cabayi (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Cabayi: Thanks for the notice! --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Bill Howell (graphic designer), from its old location at User:Booooks/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December with Women in Red
[edit]
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello. The seat figures you added to the table add up to only 173 - where are the other 104? Cheers, Number 57 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Number 57: Hi! The remaining seats remain to be announced, per the current official reports of the Electoral Council, even though there are outlets that have named which are the confirmed deputies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
[edit]Hello NoonIcarus,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Hienadz Shutau for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hienadz Shutau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hienadz Shutau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --IWI (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)