User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive 17

Deletion of the same file

Hi BanyanTree, I would like you to do something if you could. Could you delete in this file the current version of that file, reason for deletion is that there are two the same file, and is simply no reason to both be there. Thank you. - InfamousPrince (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there's actually no real effect on the wiki of doing that. All the data would still be on the servers, just hidden from users without some viewing privileges. That is normally only done for content that would be considered defamatory, contains personal contact details or otherwise has a clear negative associated with it. That is not the case here, so there is no need to do so. The average reader won't even be able to find the image description page to evaluate the upload history, while it provides a somewhat useful record for other users to evaluate the history of other users.

While I'm happy to make an exception to make a new user more comfortable, I certainly have no intention of making a habit of it and would consider continued insistence to remove revisions for apparently aesthetic reasons to be suspicious. - BanyanTree 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hi BT,

I just spotted a very old comment you made on the User talk:Speedoflight page:

Hi Speedof light, Let me join Lotsofissues in thanks for your help with Rosa Parks. One note, you had changed all the date formats to the Americanized versions, which is actually unnecessary when they are wikified due to a neat bit of coding. If they are wikified, the appearance of the dates is controlled by your personalized preferences. Note that October 28, 2005 and 28 October 2005 should appear identical, though they are written in different formats. It keeps the Commonwealth English and American English folks from spending all their time changing dates back and forth. Cheers, BanyanTree 15:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious because the two dates you mention do not appear the same when I look at them, they just appear exactly as coded in the wikitext. Similarly 2010-09-29 appears exactly as coded. I have always wondered what the best way to format a date is and I am still none the wiser! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru

The two dates above look identical to me because I changed Preferences ->Date and time from "no preference".

However, per Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll#The history of the dispute, in 2008 linking dates was deprecated, which means they cannot be autoformatted. (MOS:UNLINKDATES) As there's no clear guidance on what format is preferred, this leads to the slow motion edit wars on dates you see everywhere. The wiki is a silly place. Cheers, BanyanTree 06:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Franco 1980.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Franco 1980.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Franco AIDS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Franco AIDS.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Franco originalite.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Franco originalite.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Franco AIDS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Franco AIDS.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda peer review

Hi BanyanTree,

I see from your contribution history that you're very much off-wiki at the moment... I hope all is well in your "real" life, and feel free to ignore this message if you don't have any time at present!

Anyway, I've finally got around to listing Rwanda at peer review (a mere four years after my last FA with Maraba coffee...) so if you do have a spare moment at any point, I would be very grateful if you were able to have a look at it. I will then be looking to move on to the WP:FA push once it seems to be shipshape enough.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

PS - the peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rwanda/archive2  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Yes, I seem to have little time on-wiki these days and only occasionally pass through, normally actually as a reader (!), and see that I have a message. I will try to carve out some time and take a look but I'm afraid I'm horribly unreliable these days. Cheers, BanyanTree 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for the review of the lead and history sections. I will look in detail at your points in the next couple of weeks when time permits. I guess you're right about the Briggs & Booth book. I used it considerably when I was still in Rwanda as it was the only written source I had to hand at the time, and in many cases states some of the "obvious" facts which you wouldn't find written down anywhere else. Obviously for the more contentious issues, it should be considered less reliable than a researched academic work and I will attempt to clarify and revise using more academic sources on those issues.

I would still welcome your input into the non-History sections if your time permits, although I get the impression you believe the drive to raise this to FA status to be a lost cause in the case of this article. I'll assess the situation in more detail over the weekend hopefully. Thanks again!  — Amakuru (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, back on wiki again.

Yeah, I don't mean to be a downer, but, of the bit I went through, some clearly contentious issues are not identified as such, while some straightforward key points appear to be ignored or displaced into other periods/individuals. (I've actually been on and off again as to if Origins of Tutsi and Hutu is helpful as an article and if I should delete it entirely or retitle it or something drastic.) I don't see myself supporting the article in peer review without some pretty substantial work. I'm probably wrong about some of it, given that Rwanda is not really my thing, but there needs to be a certain level of academic rigor to work to convince me that what I think is wrong is actually correct, and the article currently lacks that supportive framework.

This is precisely why I never got around to working on Rwandan Genocide, like I intended about five years ago - I kept deciding I needed to get some of the subtopics right first, and then after doing a bit of research deciding that the subtopic was too complex to handle as a whole and trying to do a sub-subtopic. With a result of not much of anything getting done as I ended up an inactive editor.

If it helps, my standards seemed to be significantly higher than the FA reviewers, last I checked, though they keep upgrading their benchmarks as the years go on. I'll try to set aside some time to go back over the article.

Cheers, BanyanTree 14:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're wrong about most of those things and I will definitely be looking carefully at each of your points and attempting to rebalance the history section on that basis. I suppose the problem is that the whole history prior to 1895 is basically oral so it is difficult to pin precise dates, even centuries to events and people and to discern whether they really existed and what their precise impact was, and different sources interpret things in different ways. There is also this whole underlying political side to it, including the polarised arguments on the Hutu/Tutsi origins question and the inclination of some to disregard entirely anything written by the early German settlers. It makes it very difficult to cut through to cold hard facts.

My general strategy when writing the history section, which in retrospect was probably a wrong one, was to use the travel guidebook and the historical dictionary as a template, under the assumption that their timelines and weighting of events were basically correct, with attempts to cross reference facts to the more academic sources such as Prunier and Chretien where possible. So, for example, this led to the omitting of Rwabugiri as (for unknown reasons) he is mentioned only fleetingly in Briggs and Booth. I now see that Chretien devotes far more to him so I will aim to re-read the relevant Chretien chapters in detail (possibly during my daily commute on the train, during which I usually end up reading trashy free newspapers) and attempt to resynthesize the early history from that. Urghh!

I'm also tempted now to find a smaller, less controversial article of a stature similar to Maraba coffee to work on alongside, but will have to wait and see what time permits. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of War in Darfur

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article after an editor placed a reassessment tag on the article talk page. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:War in Darfur/GA1. I have delisted the article as it is not in a good state. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Hi, just a quick thank you for your work on the Spear article, I've been slowly trying to improve it for a long time now and any help is appreciated. Master z0b (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On lobsters

A long time ago, while reading the Lobsters article, I observed a hilarious but untrue description on one aspect of their behaviour, so I removed it after my friends and I had a laugh. Months or years later, I came upon the same page and it occurred to me that if even one other person got the same amusement out of it as I did, it might be worth having it back in there, if only for a short while.

Kind regards, Brodie, 174.6.229.119 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (woops, forgot sig)

Happy new year!

Morning BT,

I hope 2011 proves to be a good one for you and yours.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The same to you Amakuru! - BanyanTree 02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File

Hi, could File:Eagle Mobile Simcard.jpg the second file (so the first I uploaded be deleted? --Vinie007 10:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have already been taken care of. Cheers, BanyanTree 02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Umkhonto (missile)

You don't need my permission to do the edit. :) The reason you gave for reverting my edit makes sense so I didn't feel a response was necessary. I actually thought you changed it long ago. Roger (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Once I get reverted, I usually try to reach agreement before redoing the edit. It cuts down on the drama. Cheers, BanyanTree 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Kokomo Arnold.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kokomo Arnold.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Sage. - BanyanTree 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lionfish

The disambiguation page, Lionfish, has a large number of incoming disambig links. Since you have worked on this page, can you help fix those links? Cheers! bd2412 T 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion at Talk:Lionfish#confusion, disambiguation may be needed. BanyanTree 11:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rwanda again

Hi BT,

I hope you're well, and enjoying your excursions into the world of Lionfish...

Anyway, a few months on from WP:Peer review/Rwanda/archive2 and I've been very slowly working my way through some of the issues, where off-wiki life permits. I've updated the whole of the lead (having worked offline on it for a while) to try to tighten it up to match the article's sections, so if you have any time to give it the once (or twice) over, I would be grateful.

I have also rewritten the paragraph on the Kingdom of Rwanda (history, paragraph 2) having re-read the sources and hopefully given more weight to factual rather than vague oral history, including the reign of Rwabugiri - quite a glaring omission as you mentioned.

After that, maybe I'll see about a run at FA or GA... the worst people can do is say no, and it would drag more useful feedback out of the water.

Thanks...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just another note - I have opened another peer review, since hopefully enough time has passed since the last one, and I'll see if any others have responses. So if you want to put any opinions there, that'd be great. As usual, no problems if you're too busy!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thumbnail Size

I just wanted to offer my opinion that 200px is too small for thumbnail images. If it is a Wikipedia standard, it the standard should be increased to somewhere between 240 and 300 because of today's hi-res monitors. You do see a lot more with a larger thumbnail, and it makes a better visual impression. I don't know much about the wiki procedures, but thought I should tender my vote to someone. Thanks! Bob Webster (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Bob, I'm definitely not the one to tell. I think the thumbnail size is coded somewhere in the Mediawiki namespace, but have no idea where. In any case, the default size is 220px and, while I also edit using a big hi-resolution monitor, I'm more concerned about the students in South Africa or India trying to connect to the internet with a dialup on a 7 year old laptop than I am about how much better 30 extra pixels looks on my new iMac. Not to mention people in the developed world who are accessing it via small netbooks or other non-traditional access points. Such a person may set their preferences to a small image size so their screen isn't dominated by images, but then end up with all image if an editor has overridden the default by specifying an image size. I just think it's a poor idea to assume that your setup is typical or, even if it is typical, that you therefore no longer have to think about those who have atypical rigs.

If you want to change your thumbnail size preferences to get more image, it can be easily done at Special:Preferences --> Appearance tab --> Files section. If you want the default to be changed, you'd probably have to ask somebody at WP:Village Pump about where to start a proposal. Cheers, BanyanTree 06:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
		I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition. It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal. Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.) Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? Adam Cuerden (talk) (X! · talk)

Death of Fred Rwigema

Hi BT,

Whilst re-reading my sources to get a better handle on the situation in Rwanda in 1992 (in response to a peer review comment), I decided to try to expand and re-reference the Rwandan Civil War article. In doing so, I've just noticed your addition concerning the killing of Rwigema, stating that it was carried out by Bayingana ("14 pages in and Prunier is already dropping bombs on the established storyline"), with no further discussion on the matter. You then seem to have defended that line staunchly: "rv - nope, that's covered by the ref. Nice try though.", [1] etc.

I don't actually have a copy of the Prunier Africa's World War book, so am not sure what it says on the page concerned. Does he give any evidence? (I probably should get a copy anyway, as the most to date perspective available). It does strike me that this is at best a contentious line, and should probably at least be given in conjunction with alternative theories from other sources. Indeed Prunier himself in the book I do have (Prunier, Gérard (1995). The Rwanda Crisis, 1959–1994: History of a Genocide (Hardcover ed.). London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. ISBN 1850652430. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) dismisses the theory out of hand that Bayingana and Bunyenyezi could have killed Rwigema, on the grounds that (a) Rwigema was so respected by the RPF troops that any murderer would have himself been killed almost instantly; (b) Bayingana was very much alive and respected by his subordinates some days later (although he was killed shortly afterwards in an ambush); and (c) there was no factional infighting in the succeeding days and unlike in the EPLF or SPLA, no stories of treachery from Rwigema's friends emerged any time immediately following his death. I'm not sure if I can refute Prunier's later reference with his earlier one, but it would be nice to get a bit more perspective on this. (I recognise that you're still busy off-wiki though, so as usual no pressure for an answer on this...) Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Amakuru, I'm gonna give you the complete quotation from Prunier, ISBN 978-0-19-537420-9, pp. 13-14, and then check out the refs

And the violence did not let up once they started fighting in Rwanda, as their beloved charismatic leader, Fred Rwigyema, was murdered by his own comrades within days of the attack.[51] Since I got this crucial event wrong in 1995, some elaboration is called for.[52] [Cut 2 background sentences] On the third day of the offensive, Rwigyema held a staff conference with three of his close associates, Commanders Peter Banyingana, Chris Bunyenzi, and Stephen Nduguta. A strong argument soon developed between Rwigyema and two of his aides, Ndugutua remaining a silent bystander. The reasons for the argument were multiple. Rwigyema was a highly politicized and competent guerilla strategist. He was keenly aware of the deadly potential of the Hutu-Tutsi identity split and wanted to proceed slowly, politicize the Hutu peasantry, wait for the government to make mistakes, and gradually get the rural masses on his side. Not so for Banyingana and Buneyenzi, who wanted power and wanted it quickly, without giving much thought to the problems they would encounter later. The argument became heated, and Banyingana drew out his pistol and shot Rwigyema in the head. In the resulting confusion Nduguta slipped away, went back to Uganda and told President Museveni what had happened. Museveni was shocked and sent his trusted brother Salim Saleh to Rwanda, where he found Rwigyema's body in a swamp, buried it properly, arrested the two culprits, and brought them back to Uganda for interrogation and eventual execution

There's a bit more about lineage lines in the next paragraph concluding "...many friends of Rwigyema now living in exile believe the hapless Banyingana and Bunyenzi were manipulated in order to murder their leader. There is of course no concrete proof for this Shakespearean betrayal of a much-loved man by his comrade-in-arms, only some circumstantial evidence that would not stand up in a court of law." The implication being that Kagame was part of a conspiracy.

Reference 51 is "Here I must offer my apologies to the reader of The Rwanda Crisis, where on pp. 94-96 I give a totally false account of Rwigyema's death. My only excuse is that, in a book written in the immediate aftermath of the genocide, I still wanted to believe in the relative innocence of of the RPF and therefore accepted the cooked version of the facts it provided me with, in spite of several warnings that I was wrong."

Reference 52 is "The following account is the result of several interviews in Kampala, Paris, Kigali, and Bujumbura conducted between 1992 and 2000 with former RPF members or members of the RPF support network."

When I initially added the content, the line "Fred Rwigema was killed by a stray bullet on the second day of the war" was cited to Melvern 2004, p. 14. What Melvern, Conspiracy to Genocide, 2004, p. 14 actually says is "Fred Rwigyemana was killed on the second day of the war..." and that's it, referenced to "Interviews. Kigali, December 2001." So there was and is no citation for Rwigyema being killed in action or accidentally.

Meanwhile, Mamdani, When Victims Become Killers, 2002, p. 186, states "From day one, disagreement over methods and tactics led to infighting among guerrilla leaders. First, the legendary hero of the NRA guerrilla struggle, Fred Rwigyema, and then Baingana, died in the space of but a few weeks."

I don't have the original Prunier book at hand and don't recall if he backed up the "stray bullet" story. In any case, since Prunier has explicitly refuted his earlier account, it would be very inappropriate to continue to use it in refs.

Prunier himself says that this is all rather circumstantial. The ambiguity could be made more explicit in the article, but I've seen no sources that would indicate the assassination account should be removed, esp since no other academics seem to have come up with a story that more than handwaves at the fact that Rwigyema died. Actually, once I began to look at this, the very fact that nobody else had a concrete story as to how Rwigyema exactly died seemed a little odd. As with all things Rwanda genocide-related, everything is seen as through a glass, darkly. In any case, googling the three names above comes up with some interesting accounts/conspiracy theories. You'll find stuff like this: "Bunyenyezi and Bayingana who are believed to have been behind the plot to eliminate Rwigyema were also killed by pro-Rwigyema fighters. This sparked a bitter fight within the RPF that inevitably weakened the invading force that was then in the outskirts of Kigali – and was about to capture the city from the fleeing forces of President Juvenal Habyarimana."

OK, thanks for providing this information. It does make things rather clearer. I probably will now order the new Prunier book, if only to see if there are any other parts of the 1995 book that are now obsolete. Re your question about what the 1995 book does say about, it is:

The reality seems in fact to have been much more posaic - that Rwigyema was killed by one of the bizarre yet frequent hazards of war. It seems that he was standing on a small hill watching retreating Rwandese government forces through his binoculars when a fleeing soldier turned around and killed him with a single shot.

But as you say, it would be inappropriate to cite this given his later retraction of it.

Interesting that academic sources do not really mention a cause of death at all. I'd have thought that was quite crucial. The one body of sources I do know of right now which support the "stray bullet" theory, are those eminating from the current government, including through The New Times newspaper. e.g. [2] [3]. Obviously these sources are likely to be biased, but does that mean we can leave them out completely? — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't leave them out. Prunier's account is the only one there because it is the most detailed one by someone who doesn't have an obvious overwhelming conflict of interest in making the story come out a certain way and I was too lazy to go through, write and source a "There is a dispute. Person A says X. Person B says Y. Person C says Z"-type paragraph, and there has been no knowledgeable challenge to the content as written thus far.

Buckshot06 and I had a conversation about Prunier's credibility, in light of criticism by Odom, who seems to have appointed himself the nemesis of Prunier's book. It's at User talk:BanyanTree/Archive 16#DYK for John Numbi, and you might find it an interesting read. - BanyanTree 12:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a very interesting conversation. I guess I have sometimes been struck myself that Prunier's personal feelings at a given moment may influence his writing. His opinion of the RPF seems to have gone from staunch supporter in 1994 to something of a detractor now, with the second edition of The Rwanda Crisis somewhere in between. He also has a very negative view on the motives of the French government, which could be valid (and there are certainly plenty of unanswered questions on that topic), but again that could also influence the POV of his writing. I think I agree with your idea of assessing whether to rely on him on a case by case basis, and seeking alternative sources for the more contentious and less proven assertions. Then we do not need to reject his references out of hand when some of them are clearly based on fact.

Regarding Rwigema and Bayingana I have re-written the relevant sentence as follows:

It is likely that Rwigema was killed by his subcommander Peter Bayingana, following an argument over tactics,(Prunier. 2009. pp13–14) although the current RPF-led Government of Rwanda contend that he was killed by a stray bullet.(Government of Rwanda. 2009)

Let me know what you think of that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't even make a judgment call as to "likely" if you're gonna get into it. Maybe something along the lines of "The current RPF-led Government of Rwanda maintains that Rwigyema was killed by a stray bullet.[cite] Great Lakes scholar Gerard Prunier asserts that this is a cover story for the murder of Rwigyema by his subcommanders Peter Banyingana and Chris Bunyenzi, who Prunier maintains were subsequently executed by Rwigyema's Ugandan ally. [cite] Other academic and journalistic sources, such as Mamdani, Melvern, etc simply state the fact of his death and do not provide an explanation.[cite][cite][etc]"

Yeah, Prunier is an odd one. He's partisan in that he's critical of the RPF, and seems to at points follow this skepticism to some rather unlikely accusations, but it's not yet been explained to me how his criticism in general is unwarranted. E.g. if Rwigyema was indeed murdered by his own men and the RPF subsequently carried out a systematic program of murder and terror to win the country and subsequent Congo wars, while maintaining a public relations campaign portraying themselves as both victims and liberators, then his skepticism is warranted. Odom's starting point for arguments, as far as the few pieces I've seen from him, seems to be that the RPF are the "good guys" and that therefore they can't be said to have done anything seriously wrong because the good guys wouldn't do that, which reverses the way a historian would examine it. I wish there were even a few more serious modern Rwanda scholars out there so we could compare and contrast, but des Forges was the only one who addressed this area in particular, and Lemarchand and the Newburys don't seem to have gotten around to it, unless there's some academic sources out there that I haven't seen. - BanyanTree 22:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so useless with your Rwanda improvements. I seem to find myself wandering on-wiki for random reasons and doing entirely frivolous edits instead.  :( Cheers, BanyanTree 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ntakibazo (no worries).... if you ever do find the time to cast your semi-expert eye over it again I'd still be grateful. User:Cryptic C62 has been very helpful, giving a complete outsider's view and we're slowly working through the article clarifying points he raises. At this rate perhaps it will be ready for an FA run in a month or two... Thanks again and all the best  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot or help

Dear BanyanTree. I had a question regarding the project I'm currently working on: the WikiAfrica project. We are trying to get an overview of all the articles that need to be created/edited/wikified/etc. on our project page. We want to encourage people to expand existing articles on Africa and start with subject related to art, literature, poetry, etc. To do this, we need to pull in a list like the 'Things you can do' list I noticed you have been working on. We want to pull in a list of (for example) African poetry stubs: however, this could refer to either Africa stubs, notable Africans, notable Malians, or African literature stubs, all crossed with poetry. Do you have any idea how I can create this? Or do you know any Wikipedians who did? Thanks! Riannedac (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Riannedac, I used to be quite active in the Africa noticeboard but haven't been in a collaborative project since the WikiProject took over, as far as I remember. I'm not sure about the goal of WP:WikiAfrica that doesn't fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa already, so I'd be cautious about duplicating effort/mandates. In any case, once you figure out what organizational structure works, I think you should go to Wikipedia:Bot requests and ask if your idea is feasible. Those guys hate vague requests of "Can you help me with this thing?", so think of exactly what you want. Something along the lines of "A list of articles in Category:African poets that also have {{stub}} tags and / or have 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags. These things change all the time, and I haven't paid attention to the administrative / procedural changes in the past year or so, so I recommend getting the attention of someone who is more up to date than I. Good luck, BanyanTree 09:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Rwandan Genocide media

Category:Rwandan Genocide media, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Rosa Parks

I have nominated Rosa Parks for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You have received this notice because you have been identified as one of the top five editors of the article by edit count. Brad (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Posted

You posted the blurb on the Nigeria bombing. Maybe you could post this one too? Like the Nigeria bombing, it has some opposed votes (three) but 7 support votes and I'd hate to see it become stale by waiting too long. The article is in good shape and has no issues with sourcing. Thanks already, Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the delayed response. I am rarely on the wiki and haven't touched ITN in probably over a year, but was looking for more info about the bombings on the wiki and wondered why it wasn't on the MP already. I'll let the current regulars decide on the item you mention. - BanyanTree 03:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Nicole Polizzi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snooky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

whats so civil about war anyway?

Hi buddy, I just read the article on civil war and would be interested in improving it, not that it is not already of a high quality. I left a comment on the talk page but seeing as you seem to be one of the driving forces behind this article and i am a new contributor looking for guidance, i thought i would contact you here too. I would specifically be interested in inserting a 'warfare in civil wars' section relating Kalyvas's three fold typology (conventional/iregular/symetric non-conventional warfare).

Also i think there is far too much weight given to collier and hoeffler's model, and would interested in writing a causes of civil war section based on the phase iv PITF research, paid for by the CIA by way of SAIC to augment it. This research, involving gurr, lustick, gates and other big names, presents a predictive model with 80% plus accuracy for both civil wars specifically as well as a broader conception of 'political instability' (with equal types of type i and type ii errors).

I would really love to try and get the article to featured article status and look forward to hearing from you.Skankenstein (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Skankenstein, Civil war was one of my my many projects for which I had big plans for research and writing that I never found the time for. I think I would need to do much more research to get a sense of what theories/models are most used/cited but I would agree that, since I stopped writing after using up the sources at hand, it's pretty skewed towards sources on my old bookshelf. I haven't made any really substantive edits in months, so I would encourage you to improve as you see fit. I'm rarely on the wiki these days, but if you drop me a line I'm happy to act as a sounding board or do some light review, but you sound like you have a clear structure in mind that will work. Cheers, BanyanTree 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear BanyanTree,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer but, since it's been over a year since I did moppage on an article that I wasn't already involved in, I think I would be a very bad candidate for a study of how admins work day to day. - BanyanTree 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. We're actually looking for admins (or former admins) who have had a wide range of experiences. We'd still be interested in speaking with you, and would especially like to hear why you haven't been active as an admin lately. Interested? --Jaobar (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

recommended reading: autesserre's "Dangerous Narratives"

BanyanTree, was reading this and thought of you. Wizzy…☎ 07:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2012/02/recommended-reading-autesserres.html

File:Aboke Girls De Temmerman.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aboke Girls De Temmerman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. damiens.rf 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing BanyanTree a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Psychological Warfare Linebarger.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Psychological Warfare Linebarger.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Renamed user ixgysjijel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Psychological Warfare Linebarger.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Psychological Warfare Linebarger.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added you to Missing Wikipedians

Just to let you know (I am supposed to - this is what it says). Ottawahitech (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: Colombian armed conflict (1964–present) → Colombian civil war

Your comments on this requested move are welcome. You can find the discussion in the talk page.--Forich (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey BanyanTree

Good to see you doing a bit of editing today for the first time since April... I was beginning to think you had gone for good :) Whether it's small numbers of edits or a longer term renaissance, the Wiki will definitely be better for you being around.

2012 has been a bit of a champagne year for me, with the Rwanda article finally making it up to featured status after about three years of work towards that. I've been doing some improvements to Paul Kagame in recent months, inspired by a request from User:Lemurbaby; probably more of a GA hope eventually than an FA, although you never know! Like yourself I am often horribly busy in real life so it tends to be in sporadic bursts.

Anyway, all the best and I hope you have a happy holiday season.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Amakuru,

Some very belated congratulations on the Rwanda FA! I remember how hard you were working on it. Well deserved indeed.

I have been very occasionally correcting typos as I wander by Wikipedia. Mentally, I've never made a decision not to edit, though I forget to log in for months at a time, so it was odd receiving the message above that I was "missing". I can't even recall what irritated me enough yesterday that I felt a need to throw Tama Cemetery onto the wiki. Fortunately, besides a few new templates, it felt familiar.

I just wandered by WP:ITN/C. It's actually quite affirming to see that the re-structuring of the candidate's page that me and a few other admins had a bruising battle over a few years back is still in use and more active than I ever remember seeing it.

In any case, yes, I rather doubt that I'll go back to my old activity levels. I'm still disheartened by how many articles I should be maintaining and how many factors are continuously degrading those articles, so the sane thing to do is just wipe my watchlist and edit as the whim comes over me. This new feedback system is quite odd though, and amusing at times. But I'll try to remember to log in regularly so at least I can reply to messages... :) BanyanTree 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Restricted-use media list

An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list, so please come and include your opinion. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Luc Marchal

Hi BT

I hope you're well.

I was looking around the Wiki the other day and noticed an unfinished article which you started writing a few years ago, User:BanyanTree/Luc Marchal. I was just wondering if you would object to my taking this over at some point in the next few weeks and adding the necessary text to take it up to article status? It looks like it just needs some stuff on what happened to Marchal during the Genocide then it will be good to go, and maybe a DYK nomination thereafter. Obviously I could put text in the comment fields to attribute the relevant texts to yourself.

On another note, in case you're interested, I've currently got Paul Kagame up at WP:GAN. User:Lemurbaby, another Rwanda enthusiast, is reviewing it and it looks quite promising. Will hopefully go for an FA push on that one later this year as well. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Amakuru, I hope I'm not too late in responding. You are of course welcome to move any drafts out of my userspace to expand. Nice job on the Kagame article! BanyanTree 07:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I just Googled Marchal to see what sources were now available on him, and the draft in my userspace is the top result. That's pretty good for a draft I don't even remember writing. Heh. - BanyanTree 08:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He he, beware the user space draft, it never is just a personal doodling area. Strange that you could write some utter rubbish and false information there, and not be breaking any WP rules (probably), but people might come across it through Google and think it's a real article. Thanks re the Luc Marchal, I'll see what I can dig up and get it done, would be nice to do a "collaboration" albeit one that is not concurrent!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Fuzzy Wuzzy (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fuzzy Wuzzy (song) 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/Fuzzy Wuzzy (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Mkhululi Nyathi

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 212. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've tried to tighten it up. - BanyanTree 21:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. It's now 129 characters, and someone can review your nomination without focusing on the hook length. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mkhululi Nyathi

Alex Shih^Talk 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Sudan floods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Congress Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

One-editor assault on Octopus images

Aggressive image culling? Problems on wide screens? ---- you are always free to use a narrower window, after all having very long lines of text makes for unreadability in every case, and it's simply not reasonable (read, possible) to arrange images to suit an infinite range of page widths. The language ('aggressive' etc) seems inappropriate for the issue. The article may have had slightly too many images, or not according to taste - I think a few of them were not specially helpful, which is surely the key consideration - but there is no need to make a thing out of it. I'm not quite ready to vote "I beg to oppose" but I'm drifting that way. Maybe time to tone it down a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC) (btw - please reply here if anywhere, I'm not keen on split discussions.)

As you can see from the header on this page, neither am I.

It may not reasonable to expect image placement suitable for all screens, but it should work for at least some of them. On wide screens, there were columns of images down both sides for much of the article, with images far from their related text. Conversely, when I narrowed my window to half the screen, there was only room next to the pottery gallery for four words on the left. I thought about centering that gallery, then saw that the third image's octopus was almost invisible around the curve of the vase, and went with cutting down to a single image.

In regards to your statement above about "unreadability in every case," please see WP:IMAGELOCATION: "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". That's slightly more explicit than WP:STACKING#Alternating left and right: "This has a disadvantage, though: people with very low screen resolutions (such as those using netbooks) may find the result too awkward, albeit still readable." It is clearly not possible to optimize for all screens, but that article seemed to treat sandwiching as the preferred layout. It is not.

The edit summary "aggressive image removal" is meant to convey that the focus is on removal rather than inclusion, likely in a way that at least editors will feel excessive. It seems to convey that meaning well. I could have just said "image removal" but would have lost all the implications. I assume that somebody will be irritated and will start re-adding images. Hopefully they will do so in a way that is more in line with guidelines and with the better quality images available in the Commons category.

Cheers, BanyanTree 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad we're both reflecting on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Reed

Your posting of Lou Reed at ITN was contrary to the guidelines: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." Please revert yourself until the update says more than that he has died. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote those words you're quoting. As someone who can speak to their original intent, your interpretation is wrong. Those words predate the establishment of RD, which seems specifically designed to avoid the full ITN criteria. - BanyanTree 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)