Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses in India

Would appreciate Kautilya3 and your comments on Cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses in India. Feel free to add / revise. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Sarah Welch, though it might take me a while to get around to it. 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No rush. Please take your time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve Biko Anniversary

Hi Vanamonde. 12 September 2017 is going to mark the fortieth anniversary since the death of Steve Biko. I got the Biko article up to GA status fairly recently and I'm hoping to get it up to FA status so that it can be the Featured Article of the day on the actual anniversary. In order to ensure that the article reaches FA status in time, it really needs to be nominated soon. Problematically, I already have one article in the FA system (Marjorie Cameron) and cannot unilaterally nominate another while that is in the queue. What I can do is co-nominate the article with somebody else, and I was wondering if—given the interest that you have shown in South African historical figures like Makeba—you might be interested in being that co-nominee? There is no pressure on you, so feel free to decline the offer, but I just thought that I would ask and see. Hope that your Wikibreak went well! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I'd certainly be interested, as Biko is a fascinating historical character, and one I've been interested in for a long time. I'd actually hoped to do the GA review for the article, but somebody else got to it first. My familiarity is primarily with Woods' biography of him and with a couple of other materials, though. So why don't you give me a couple of days to dig into some of the sources and go over the prose, and then we can give this a go? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sure thing. I've got a few other bits I can add too, but will try and get them done tonight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of secret police organizations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of secret police organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mannenberg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mannenberg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Starship Troopers

On 14 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Starship Troopers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Heinlein's 1959 novel Starship Troopers is a critique of US society of the 1950s, and advocates for corporal and capital punishment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Starship Troopers. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Starship Troopers), 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, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Basirhat communal violence

Have you read the sources and corresponding texts in the article? Jionakeli (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Uroš Macerl

On 16 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uroš Macerl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that organic farmer Uroš Macerl won the Goldman Environmental Prize for leading a legal challenge against a cement company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uroš Macerl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Uroš Macerl), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mannenberg

The article Mannenberg you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mannenberg for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Tombs of Atuan

On 18 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Tombs of Atuan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ursula K. Le Guin's 1971 novel The Tombs of Atuan tells the coming-of-age story of a female character, a choice unusual to fantasy of the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Tombs of Atuan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Tombs of Atuan), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"... blaming him for his pain, ..." Really? 'his'? Shenme (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Shenme: Yes, that's what the sources say; what of it? Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 02:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Elsewhere, "While waiting for the tide she has an urge to kill Ged for destroying her life, but..." Then later in the article, "She contemplates killing Ged, blaming him for his pain, but ..." Surely it is her pain that motivates her to think of killing Ged?
"Oh, he's in pain, so I'll kill him." ? Naah. "Oh, he's caused me pain and loss and so I'll kill him." Rather more believable, yes? Do the sources really say it's all about euthanasia? Shenme (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Shenme: Oh I see what you mean. That's just a typo. I'll fix it. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Asimbonanga

On 20 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Asimbonanga, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at a 1999 performance of Savuka's anti-apartheid song "Asimbonanga", former South African President Nelson Mandela danced on stage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Asimbonanga. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Asimbonanga), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Savuka

On 20 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Savuka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at a 1999 performance of Savuka's anti-apartheid song "Asimbonanga", former South African President Nelson Mandela danced on stage? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Savuka), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment at Government of India Peer reveiw

I have listed the article at peer reveiw please give input to help me improve thevArticleRADICAL SODA(FORCE) 10:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mannenberg

The article Mannenberg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mannenberg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Jats

Any chance of you taking a look at List of Jats with an admin's eye? I'm fed up of reverting anons - it goes on month in, month out with rarely (if ever) anything decent from them. Right now, I think someone has just registered an account after my reverts of them as an anon. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: I've given it three months: if it resumes after that, I think a year or indefinite might be justified. I'm not hopeful that disruption will stop, but if I jump straight to indefinite protection somebody is going to take issue with me. Vanamonde (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for looking at it. Spiffy has recently begun indef semi-protecting various caste-related articles, and someone did the same at another list yesterday when I reported it at RfPP. You wouldn't be alone if, at some point in the future, it was necessary to do it at this list. It is good to have a break from dealing with it and we'll see how it goes but, like you, I am not hopeful. - Sitush (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: You are most welcome. Congratulations on passing, and on the huge number of supports you received. Vanamonde (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

care to step in again?

The IP hopped addresses and is continuing the edit war at Religious views of Adolph Hitler. No pressure if you don't want to deal with it; I can request a short semi on the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mjolnir Pants: I've semi-protected the page for a week, let's see how it goes. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Article of Kiran Kaverappa

The article Kiran Kaverappa now has proper citation in The Hindu newspaper. (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/standing-apart-with-his-poetic-lyrics/article19182902.ece) Hopes that which is enough for an article. Kindly retrieve the article. Thank you.

Wikieditorksd (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The page has been restored already by Tavix; not much to do here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alt-right

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"unused template"

Re this edit, which you gave the edit summary: "It is patently silly to include an unused template. If and when somebody add notes, they can add the template too. I am not going to revert you any further: if you wish to continue warring, be my guest".

No, it's not patently silly, it's been carefully thought through to provide the simplest and easiest way of collecting citations and references at the end of any article using short-form referencing. Firstly, it minimises the work future editors have to do when they add a {{efn}} - or similar -template; and in the meantime it sits there harmlessly, getting in nobody's way. Secondly, we've experimented with different forms of headers for this job, and have now settled on this one. In this decision, I've been influenced by J. Johnson's remarks on citation and referencing, and in particular, his observation that citations are a subset of notes. --NSH001 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, my issue is not with short references; it is with placing the "notelist" template in an article which does not use footnotes. Most of our millions of articles do not use footnotes. Are you going to place the notelist template in each of them? No, because that's silly. Consensus to do so has not been established on the talk page of Quandamooka people; I should know, I wrote the article. If you have built consensus for this very particular form of citation formatting elsewhere, then you should be pointing to that consensus instead of edit-warring, because that consensus is not at the relevant MOS pages. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
If you don't have a problem with using short-form references, then I can't really see what you're talking about. You may have noticed that Nishidani and I (mostly Nishidani, I merely tidy up after him) are in the process of setting up hundreds of articles on Australian Aboriginal tribes. We have used short-form referencing consistently throughout all these articles, including, where necessary, changing existing articles to that format. So far no-one's objected, and you don't seem to be objecting to that either, but to something else, which I can't follow at all. It obviously makes sense to have all these articles in a consistent (short-form) style. --NSH001 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You are dodging the issue. I did not revert your short citation style. I removed the {{notelist}} template, which served no purpose on the page, as the page had no notes. There is absolutely no requirement to have the template on one page if it is also in use on similar pages: indeed, WP:CITEVAR says that a citation format should not be changed without consensus, which you did not obtain. Nonetheless, I confined myself to removing the unused template, which you reinstated, twice, for no reason. This is rather too silly to spend any more energy on, so please leave it be; just remember that in other circumstances, applying a citation style that you like to an article, simply because you have used the same style elsewhere, is likely to be considered disruptive. Vanamonde (talk)
All of these pages are programmed to have notes, as one can see from dozens of pages more fully edited. It's obligatory to add notes because of source confusion, and the intrinsic controversies. There's over 600 (probably 700 on most recent calculations) in the series, with 202 set up, and to ask of editors that they only add the Notelist to a standard template when notes are actually added, is to add an additional work-load article by article to an already extrenuating, if readily embraced, task. We are not talking about technical 'requirements' but of how those pages are being done and how they are projected to be done. I do a rapid survey of the readily available literature for each tribe, NSH001 then does invaluable technical fixes, and, as one can see from my edit history, I then return to pages done weeks or months earlier, to add in the notes, which will come when I have the time to examine the original sources used by Tindale (for which I am cosmpiling the comprehensive reference bibliography on my talk page). Please don't complicate our editing lives. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani, that is reasonable if you set a page up. You did not write this page: I did. You've made two edits to it, totaling 20bytes of content. Which is not to say I own the page, I do not; but the convenience argument holds no water. Instead, you've both of you gone out of the way to modify the source formatting to match that of other pages that you wrote, which is precisely the problem. Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
And if that is too complicated: WP:CITEVAR comes from an ARBCOM ruling, and writing hundreds of pages does not exempt you from it. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I have a blitz of lightening in my area, which had already cut the line and wiped off both edits to the article and a reply. Bear with me. I must switch the computer off.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Take your time, because really I'm not particularly interested in prolonging this discussion; I have better things to do. I have explained why switching the style, and in particular insisting on the presence of an unused template, was improper; but I have no interest in a lengthy discussion merely to get it removed. Please keep the guideline in mind in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think switching the template was improper at all. I and NSH001 have been systematically reviewing, minutely, all pages on Aboriginal tribes. The number of dead links, unsourced comments, sources that are questionable RS, etc. are enormous. I ignored doing more than fixing the references earlier without adding to the page content for a simple reason: as a generic trans-tribal page it is more problematical, because several distinct peoples are regrouped, usually as a result of early ethnographic theories, but also to reassemble an identity destroyed by the relentless dispersion of tribes or the collocation of their remnants into a new 'community' that they are much harder to deal with ethnographically. Compare the Meru peoples, [[Gunai/Kurnai,]] Kulin people and several others, all hopelessly messy.
While I appreciate what was done, and thank you for the work, note that in my first technical review (which you note for its paucity of actual content) I did not remove the sources I found though, at a glance, there were many problems.
  • 1 Fox, Karen (2011). Maori and Aboriginal Women in the Public Eye. ANU E Press. p. 106. ISBN 9781921862625.
No page link. One needed to be supplied
  • 2.a b c d e f g h i j k l "Local Indigenous Peoples". wynnummanly.com. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
12 uses of what is not RS, with dubious or plainly false information. The good information it supplies can be easily sourced to the technical literature. I.e. half othe information on the page is unverified to an acceptable mainstream publication.
  • 3. V.V. Ponosov (1964). Results of an archaeological survey of the Southern Region of Moreton Bay and of Moreton Island. University of Queensland.
I read that a year ago, and couldn't remember a date for 21,000. I searched my copy and could not find it, then speed-read it again. On p.79 there's mention of a primitive homo sapiens skull,and from memory around pp.92-4 mention of similarities with late Paleolithic stonework in Siberia, but no date. I've fixed that
  • 4. Hughes, Robert (23 February 2010). The Fatal Shore. Random House. pp. 440–450. ISBN 9781407054070.
A broad page spread for a source is bad practice. We are obliged to supply specific pages for individual facts; secondly stricto sensu it is WP:OR to introduce on a page on the Quandamooka, a text that never mentions that grouping. I'm flexible on this, so I've corrected some specifics with a page link to thaty volume, and removed the unreliable source used earlier
  • 5. "QSNTS - Quandamooka People". Qsnts.com.au. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
Not RS.
  • 6."Quandamooka". Redland.qld.gov.au. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
Not RS.
  • 7.Broome, Richard (1 May 2010). Aboriginal Australians; A History (4 ed.). Allen & Unwin. pp. 195–227. ISBN 9781741765540. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
I couldn't find any mention of Oodgeroo/Kate Walker there in searching the book. In any case, once more, the link was to the book cover, and no specific page was given.
  • 8.Land, Clare (26 August 2002). "Oodgeroo Noonuccal (1920–1993)". Australian Women's Archives Project. Retrieved 14 March 2007.
  • 9."Oodgeroo Noonuccal." Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, Vol. 27. Gale, 2007
That is RS, but unlinked, and useless when we have Colin's fine obituary, linkable which covers all the details.
  • 10.Green, Antony. "Algester". Queensland Election 2015. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
No problem
  • 11 "Labor's Leeanne Enoch to become one of two Indigenous MPs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Mobile.abc.net.au. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
No problem.

In short of 11 sources, I found a problem with 9, and of that 9, one not reliable source was used to document half the content.

I'm glad you objected because it drew my attention to my oversight, and I'm revising the page in terms of the strict RS criteria we insist on for these articles. As to the template, the policy you cite is stale, 2006 - wiki in its infancy. If you insist, as first author, that a page you built must retain your template, it will mean we will have within a year or so, if we manage to finish the series, this page as a unique example on aboriginal peoples for its solitary template. I suggest therefore that you raise the problem at the appropriate forum, for clarification, because, in a situation like this, I prefer WP:IAR - the end being the overriding one of ensuring that everything on Wikipedia strives to meet the highest criteria for academic reliability and verifiability. regards Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Like I said I'm not particularly interested in discussing this further, in particular because you still do not appear to understand the specific issue that I raised. You want to improve the sources, well and good; you can do so without changing formatting. I objected to a certain format; NSH001 edit-warred it in, ignoring CITEVAR, only because you had used this formatting elsewhere. That was, and remains, a problem; and the dodgy web sources I used in my Wiki-toddlerhood have absolutely nothing to do with it, because any sources can be presented in either the old format or the new. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have understood exactly what you wrote, and I will not quarrel. Best work practice on wiki is to make articles (a) faithful (b) exemplifying the best reliable sources (c) so that a global readership can access the article confident that they are reading something which has been carefully vetted, closely monitored for accuracy, and representing the cutting edge of scholarship. 99% of wiki edits undersdstandable do not take into consideration page style, but when the best quality, internally consist style is obligatory as at GA/FA, then it becomes necessary to consider this when an editor decides to give a thorough overhaul to an existing page that fails a lot of our standard specifications, as this did. All editors who write with WP:FA in mind do exactly what I and NSH001 did, (see for example the history of the Shakespeare authorship question). One can split hairs, and indeed hold up improvements by citing any number of policies that protect something from being changed. It's true you wrote the article, but the article you wrote was unreliable and poorly sourced. If you remain unhappy about the fact that a note format was introduced, or that the two of us did not get your permission to alter the format used for it, I suggest you take the issue to the appropriate arbitration board. I'll accept the consensual third opinion verdict. I'm familiar with NSH001's editing over several years: he avoids disputes, quietly does first rate work, is thoroughly familiar with policy, and I don't consider what he did evidence for anything but care for improvement. If you want an admission, yeah, I am careless about quite a lot of things. Blame me.Nishidani (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I spent some time drafting the below, and got an "edit conflict" warning when I tried to post it. So it's mostly been written without having seen Nishidani's latest posting.
Nishidani - you should post most of the above (the bit about the sources, etc) on the article talk page, where other editors can contribute to the discussion (though it doesn't hurt to leave it here).
Vanamonde93 - Sorry for having to drag this out even further, but I can't allow you to write nonsense like that about me without responding. You didn't remove the notelist template because of CITEVAR, you removed it because it was "unused". That was, is, and remains, a silly reason. The presence or absence of the notelist template has nothing to do with CITEVAR. I'll come back to CITEVAR in a moment, but either (a) {{efn}} (or similar) is being used, in which case it is essential, or (b) it's not being used but in that case the notelist template is harmless, and saves work for future editors. Contrary to what you say above, the presence or absence of the notelist template, if there are no efn-style notes, makes no difference whatsoever to the visual formatting of the article. The arrangement I have used has been carefully thought through to present notes/citations/references in a way that actually represents what they are (see my remarks at the top of this thread).
Again, the same thought and care has gone into minimising the amount of work that future editors need to do if and when someone adds a {{efn}} note to the article. It's simple, neat, elegant, and saves work. What on earth is the problem with that? Now, you might be on slightly stronger ground arguing that CITEVAR applies to changing the headings, but again, that's not what CITEVAR is about. For example, if someone had written an article with separate, say, "Works", or "Bibliography" sections, or had split the bibliographic listings into different sub-sections suitable for the particular article, then yes, that arrangement should not be changed without getting agreement. But CITEVAR doesn't really apply to the minor arrangement of headings in this case. If you don't believe me, try arguing your case (either on the presence or absence of the notelist template, or the rearrangement of the headers) on whatever forum is being used to discuss CITEVAR. I don't think you'll get very far.
--NSH001 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Uou have understood neither of the issues here; that consensus is required for a formatting change, and that verifiability and formatting are different things. That I objected to only part, and not all, of your change does not imply that you had consensus for it. This lack of understanding is all the more surprising because the current version of the article, edited by you, contains the same sources in both long and short formats, demonstrating that your walls of text about sources are totally irrelevant. I have not the inclination to try and convince you, nor does anyone at any noticeboard; so please drop the issue, and do not post here about it any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I find this attitude doubly surprising given that you were blocked just months ago for making edits without consensus [1], but oh well. Just please keep in mind that what your aesthetic preferences cannot override content guidelines, or the need for consensus. Just a suggestion, which you are welcome to ignore: as I said, no longer interested in discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a bad boy. I'll copy this to the talk page, and I propose reforming all of the references to the template I use. It's efficient, and cuts down inordinately lengthy space-consuming referencing, and has a majority of 2 to one. If you want to post an RfC. please do so there, after I've copied this onto the Quandamooka page. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopi Hoekstra

I undid your corrections because:

Sources: 1) "Elizabeth" not "Elisabeth" -- Danielle's birth certificate. 2) One parent not being born in Holland -- Hopi's parents, pers. comm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eratosignis (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eratosignis: Sorry, "personal communication" is just not good enough. We can only provide information about living people (see WP:BLP) it is supported by reliable sources. If the subject of an article (parents are close enough) contact you to say that certain material is incorrect, it can be removed, though the proper thing to do is to contact WP:OTRS. However, we are certainly not going to include material just based on your say-so that you have gotten it from Hoekstra's parents; you need to produce a source to this effect. The same principle applies to the spelling of her name, but in that case I cannot be bothered to argue. Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sorry to hear this. How about "personal communication" from Professor Hoekstra herself? I can assure you information is correct, and you could take it on trust (why else would I correct something so trivial); otherwise I will suggest she contact you to correct it. Eratosignis (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Eratosignis: If you have personal communication from Hoekstra stating that certain information in her article is incorrect, then the thing to do would be to contact WP:OTRS, as I said, because personal communication does not meet our standard of verifiability. Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding article "Shivkrupanand Swami"

Hi, 

    Thank you for reviewing the initial drafts of article "Shivkrupanand Swami".

As per your suggestion, I have removed all information which does not have any reliable online sources. I have mainly kept 2 items in article 

1. About his spiritual journey (Taken from his autobiography and book from Hazel Courteney)
2. About Samarpan Meditation and workshops: (Taken from his site and other national daily newspaper sites)

  I feel the content is neutral and non-promotional now.

But I want your feedback. Please give your feedback about below draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Udtrivedi#Draft_of_Shivkrupanand_Swami

Thanks and Regards, Uday

Dating for bot. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:/r/The Donald

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:/r/The Donald. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Contributions review

Hi, any chance you can find some time to review the contribution history here and the numerous warnings etc on that user's talk page? They're new but they really are not getting it. Basically, adding unsourced/removing sourced in order to present castes in a certain light. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow, and now this edit summary. I did try to explain at Talk:Dhedh but they're a "truth" not verifiability person. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've blocked them for 31 hours: they've clearly read the final warning and disregarded it. I've also left them a lengthy warning. I'm considering preemptively protecting the pages they are interested in; I know the protection policy says not to do that, but I think I can IAR here given that there has been a stated intention to sock. Perhaps a total inability to do what they want will get them to be reasonable, but somehow I have my doubts...what is it even that they are warring over? Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't got much idea what their point is. Part of that is their poor English-language capability but, really, they do seem to understand what a source is but are saying that, whatever it is they want to do, is true and so no source is needed. Or, at least, that's what it seems like.
I think you might get into trouble with that semi, despite IAR. Probably best to lift it and then impose at the first sign of something happening. - Sitush (talk)
BTW, all their talk of socking using mobiles, different IP addresses etc does sound like someone who is familiar with checkuser. They may already be a sock, although I've not delved through the history of the articles they have been editing. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
And here's the sock. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
So much for my optimism. Well, now that one sock has shown up I think I'm going to leave the protection in place. Sock blocked, page protected for good measure. Probably going offline shortly, AIV/RFPP might serve you better if more show up; else I'll deal with them in a few hours. Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And they're back, under their original account. Straight after the block ended. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, that one got blocked but I suspect this is another. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, Sitush, I was offline for longer than I expected to be. Thanks, RP, for taking care of it. Let me know if more crop up, and i'll do my best to deal with it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wildlife of Turkmenistan

Hanberke and I worked jointly in my sandbox on the article Wildlife of Turkmenistan which I moved into mainspace yesterday. As a result, the history of the article includes a history of my sandbox since I started it in 2016. I believe that as an admin, you can edit the history of an article. Could you get rid of the part of the history that preceded our joint effort (everything up to and including May 1st 2017) as this is not relevant to Turkmenistan and its wildlife.

By the way, I liked your blind worm snake article. You are very versatile!. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks, I appreciate the compliment! In all honesty I am not sure how to go about something like this; I'm a very ordinary admin, who doesn't dabble in fancy stuff like histmerges. I have the technical ability to hide the intermediate revisions, but that would not be appropriate and is not exactly what you want. I'd suggest you post to RM. Sorry.. Vanamonde (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2017 Gujarat flood

On 4 August 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 Gujarat flood, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. BencherliteTalk 12:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Puffery

Calling Vajpayee a Statesman is not puffery, in fact such a word doesn't even exist. Statesman is not archaic either. There is some difference between a politician and a statesman, you might wanna google that. Also, Vajpayee is not a politician, he is a former politician, and a statesman is much better word than a former politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A suyash (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As RegentsPark has already said, please use the talk page of the article. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Gujarat flood

2017 Gujarat flood was posted at WP:ITN/C on July 27 and had support from some editors. It was marked [Ready] but never posted and archived. As posted Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#2017_Gujarat_flood, it was possibly went unnoticed or ignored without telling reason. An IP has renominated it too (but poorly). Have a look and tell, can it be posted? or has any issue? as nomination is never closed. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: I know, I nominated it. It got archived for lack of attention (unfortunate) but has been posted now. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeh, I noticed it after I left a message here. Thank you very much for your help. :)--Nizil (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carlos Castillo Armas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carlos Castillo Armas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mannenberg

On 6 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mannenberg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pianist Abdullah Ibrahim recorded the Cape jazz instrumental "Mannenberg" in response to the forced relocation of Coloured families by the South African government during apartheid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mannenberg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mannenberg), 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, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Typhlops meszoelyi

On 7 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Typhlops meszoelyi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the specimen from which the blind snake Typhlops meszoelyi was described had a diameter of 3 millimeters (0.12 in)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Typhlops meszoelyi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Typhlops meszoelyi), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump Tower wiretapping allegations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump Tower wiretapping allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK query

Are you currently online? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yes. Why? Vanamonde (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the main page, there are only seven DYK hooks. Wondering what had happened to the eighth, I found it was this one. I can't quite make out what happened, but you will see a credit is on Alex Shih's talk page but the hook is missing from the main page. He moved the prep set into the queue. Did he think he should not move his own hook? I am a bit mystified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Nothing that complicated: it was pulled by Nyttend. I'm a tad busy at the moment (I spoke too soon about being online) but if nobody has fixed the missing hook by the time I'm back I'll try to add one. I will add, though, that I would never promote my own hook to the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend's action seems a bit extreme, but thanks for investigating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the article in detail, but it does seem odd that an article expanded by one admin, and reviewed by an ex-admin/experienced content creator, should be pulled by another admin. It would appear that somebody in this sequence needs to be more careful. I've checked the main page, and it seems left-hand heavy, if anything; so not going to replace this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Cattle theft in India

I know you are busy at FAC, but I am at my wit's end at Talk:Cattle theft in India. I sincerely need help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

For article The Monk Who Became Chief Minister

Hello, Please describe why the title has been cut short for the article The Monk Who Became Chief Minister 103.219.212.154 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Unless there's a good reason not to do so, we should use the name most frequently used, which is the shortened version. Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP..

Hi, Vanamonde, per Ticket:2017072710019074, there has been a request to remove all information related to spouses and children in the info-box at Ranjith (actor).The sourcing is poor.Also, pinging @Cyphoidbomb and Materialscientist:.Any ideas about how do we process these?Winged Blades Godric 06:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC) As a side-note, I choose to inform these editors because they actively edit/contribute in these areas.Winged Blades Godric 06:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no experience in these matters besides generic experience with writing biographies. The names of the children should probably be removed in any case, unless they are adults or notable in their own right, and unless the spouse is notable/contributes to the subject's notability, I see no reason why her name should be preserved either. Vanamonde (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Waiting for others to comment.But the first marriage was to a well-known industry actress and the divorce was well-covered in several sources( this and this).Anyway removing the number of children from the infobox and adding proper sourcing.Winged Blades Godric 09:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: The spouse data, (with the exception of Chitramala and Kollytalk, which look like blogs to me) seems properly sourced per [2][3]. If the children are non-notable minors, their names could be removed, and instead we could use a number. The (albeit confusing) Template:Infobox person instructions suggest this as a privacy precaution, however there's nothing codified at MOS:BIO about omitting non-notable children further down in the body of the article, unless, per WP:BLPNAME, the content is unsourced. "...names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb:--That helped a lot! Many thanks! Winged Blades Godric 16:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zapad-2017 exercise. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Brian Cain

I would like to accept this draft but the topic is create protected. I beleive the issues in the previous AfD discussions have been addressed and ample and reliable evidence of notability has been provided. ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_16&oldid=1088871530"