Jump to content

User talk:Voorts/Archives/2024/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whale squish

[edit]


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

@The Blue Rider: What is this regarding? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN nomination

[edit]

Hi sorry to bother you, please check out the talk page of the aritcle you recently reviewed Talk:Battle of Thorgo.

Rahim231 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Costello's scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 November 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:David Lammy on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Keys to the White House on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Introduction
  • Membership news, obituary and election results
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
  • Closing words
– Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Time zone on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October thanks

[edit]
story · music · places

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Pétain

[edit]

Hi, Your closure of the RFC is wrong. 1. It doesn't reflect the consensus. 2. Compassionate727 asked a question of the coloring copyright, but it is original. 3. There have been a long discussion on Commons which concluded in keeping the image. This includes very detailed arguments by knowledgeable people about why PD-US-alien property applies. It is quite clear that people voted without complete knowledge and understanding of the copyright issue. Yann (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I agree that the consensus was for image A excluding the copyright issues.
  2. I took C727 to be discussing the image as presented on Commons, which is currently tagged as PD in the US under an alien property tag.
  3. I explained in my close why I don't believe why the Commons discussions are binding. In any event, the fact that this image was owned by the Vichy government is an assertion; closers aren't bound to accept weak factual claims with no evidence, particularly when a policy with legal effect that tells us to err on the side of caution is involved.
voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer is unknown, so it is in the public domain in France anyway. File:Pétain - portrait photographique.jpg was an official portrait, so it is more than probable that it was a work for hire, therefore the copyright was owned by the Vichy State. That is the logical conclusion (i.e. Occam's razor). Yann (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IUPC requires proof of PD status, not that it is likely or logical that something is in the public domain. Also, per the French PD license on Commons, the work is required to be "anonymous or pseudonymous", where the true author's name has never been revealed, rather than us just not knowing who the author is. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the news criteria amendments

[edit]

Hey. Just wanted to pass along a inquiry to you regarding the ITN RFC, and figured I'd do so here rather than creating a new section to bring this up. I know it's not a massive quantity of time, but it's been over two weeks since the RFC was started and it seems like there isn't going to be any consensus on any of the proposals. I'm thinking it may just be in our best interest to take the discussion back to the drawing board. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always a fans of RfCs running their course. It's possible a consensus develops, possible that one doesn't. I don't think the RfC continuing precludes other discussions about different amendments or alternatives to ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, if that's what you believe is best. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPP and notability

[edit]

Hi voorts. While reviewing a PERM request, I came across these discussions you started a few months ago: User_talk:Miminity/Archives/3#NPP_patrols and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#Misuse_of_NPP_perm_by_Miminity. I can see that this editor has some issues with their patrolling, but this comment of yours caught my eye:

the key tasks of NPP are (1) checking for COPYVIO and (2) checking for notability. Both of those tasks take time. If you're not sure that something is notable, do not mark it as patrolled. For example, you should not have marked Franco Spitale as patrolled since you were going to tag it with {{notability}}, as that template indicates that notability of an article is uncertain. At this point, I would recommend that you re-read the instructions, wait a day, re-read them again, and then take things very slowly.

This struck me as quite unfair because, if they did read the instructions, they would find that they don't say anything of the sort. Notability has never been one of the core concerns of NPP and NPPers have never been required to enforce that guideline. Some reviewers think that it is important to screen for notability, and there is nothing stopping them, but please don't tell new reviewers that it's mandatory. I regularly tag articles with {{notability}} when reviewing them, have done for eight years without complaint, and recommend that others do so too. I get the sense that this editor was trying but struggling to get the hang of NPP and received contradictory advice cannot have helped. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. Thank you for dropping by to discuss this. The NPP instructions acknowledge "Opinions are divided on how important it is to consider notability during new page patrol." Thus, new NPP patrollers are bound to get conflicting advice from both sides of that divide.
In any event, my intent wasn't to suggest a full-blown before search, but rather to reflect the patrol instructions which state "At a minimum, as a new page patroller, you should be able to identify topics that patently lack notability and nominate them for deletion." Additionally, the NPP flowchart, which I presume most new patrollers use (as I did when I started), instructs editors to evaluate minimum notability standards.
I understand your view, but I personally would not tag a page as reviewed if I had notability concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with your advice here: "How deeply to assess notability should also be approached pragmatically, based on the nature of the topic." I don't think we're that far apart on our views. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voorts/Archives/2024/October&oldid=1255227161"