User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 31

Arman Alif
Recently, You have deleted a page Arman Alif. But, I don't agree with you. He is historical record holder and it was featured on most of the media of Bangladesh. Then, he was also nominated for Meril Prothom Alo Awards (It is a major Award in Bangladesh) as  Best Singer. It fulfils criteria no. 8 of Notability (music). But according to Nominator's word it didn't establish notability. And there are 2 delete votes as per nom. Here nominator himself established notability in his nomination. So, I want this page to be restored.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you created the page, and so it's likely you feel strongly about the matter, but consensus in that discussion was quite clear. Any other admin would close the discussion the same way. I suggest you wait until more sources are available, and then recreate the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Previously, you helped me in restoring 2 bad speedy deleted articles. Thanks for those actions. But, this time Arman Alif clearly passed Notability (music). He also fulfilled basic notability as he is a holder of historical record. But, in this case there are to as per nom votes from relatively new users and there nominator himself established notability in nomination. I don't thik they read Notability (music) carefully. According to this, can you restore this page, please?--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. Part of assessing consensus is checking whether the nomination is based in policy; and it was, in this case. The award you point to is not so prominent that receiving it makes someone obviously notable; nor is the chart position you point to. Both those things are matters of editorial judgement, and consensus did not go in your favor. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in 8 that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". Meril Prothom Alo Awards is known as "Oscar of Bangladesh". So, I think it established notability, don't it?--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it is an award created by a newspaper and a toiletries company. It isn't a government-run national award, or one run by a national academy. People can call it what they like, but it's not an award that confers obvious notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is a holder of historical record. His song Oporadhi is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. It also featured most of the media of Bangladesh. The record was also featured in Indian media and DW. It established notability, didn't it?--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issues with that chart were explained at the AfD. Notability was not established, which is why I deleted the article. I don't want to keep arguing about this; if you want to take this to WP:DRV, feel free to do so, but I suggest your time would be better spent working on something else. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Arman Alif
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arman Alif. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno
 * Pictogram voting rename.png JamesBWatson →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news
 * As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration
 * The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
 * The arbitration case regarding was closed.  While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice
Hi! Can you please sort out Clint Eastwood in the 1950s? You have seemingly closed it's AfD as delete, but it hasn't been deleted yet. I placed a G6 for it, but now it will be two days without any actions by other admins. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read my closing statement? I intentionally did not delete the page. There were persuasive arguments that some of the content might need a merger, which might need a discussion on the talk page. I specifically asked that once any such arguments had been sorted, the page could be tagged for G6. I see that you've done that, and RegentsPark has deleted it; so we should be good. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I must have spaced out with the merge details, I am sorry! Thanks for the explanation, and sorry if I bothered you. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I too spaced out on the merge details when I deleted it. Vanamonde, I'll leave it to you to decide whether to restore it or not. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, RP; I'm not going to bother at the moment; if someone is interested in merging anything, I'm sure they'll let me know. I have to treat arguments at AfD as they are written, but I can't help but notice that a few editors have a tendency to drop an alphabet soup of policies into AfD discussions, and then never follow up on actually rescuing those pages. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

To stalkers who like formatting
If I have any such: I have at various points split R. Carlos Nakai discography and Miriam Makeba discography off from their respective biographies. Ideally, they should be sortable tables, but I hate table formatting, with a passion. Anyone interested in doing this? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A question
Hello Vanamonde93! Could you please help me to add that dividing line, like the one you have on your profile, between the list of articles you have created? I would like to add the same on my profile. Sadko (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can see the code at User:Vanamonde93/User page; in this case, it is by typing . Specifically, it is the "rules=yes" that places the lines. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you kindly. Sadko (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
&#x222F; WBG converse 10:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Nadja Malacrida
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject India
 WikiProject India

'Namaste'', Vanamonde93. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.'''  Subscribe

Newsletter discussion

Contribute

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Archive

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Britain First
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Britain First. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Ayodhya dispute at RFPP
Hey Vanamonde93, I've granted your request to semi-protect the 5 articles listed here. I agree that semi-protection for all 5 articles is the best solution here. Just a heads-up: this recent edit appears to be a problematic, but I didn't take any action in order to remain as uninvolved as possible—this subject area seems contentious. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks; it was indeed problematic, exactly the sort of stuff that I was complaining about. I've reverted. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Only one very quick question! Unfamiliar with Indian clothing customs (bracelets)
I am unfamiliar with Indian clothing customs. In the "Social disruption" section of Bengal famine of 1943 there is a photo that Fowler&fowler (who is on wikibreak, and I do not wish to disturb him) has labeled "Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943". Following this description, I made the alt text: "Alt text: Old photograph of a woman squatting and tiny, emaciated toddler standing on a sidewalk. The woman is shirtless but squatting to conceal her breasts. The toddler is wearing rags." But ... you know... those arms look kinda muscular, and so does the back.. the face is a bit unclear and a bit androgynous, so might be a young man, maybe late teens (?) .. do the bracelets definitely mark the wearer as female? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help you out, but I haven't the expertise to answer that question, I'm afraid. I strongly suspect the answer would have a lot to do with the ethnic and religious group this person was from, but that's just as much of an unknown. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for replying! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ursula le Guin scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ursula le Guin article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 21, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 21, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

Congratulations! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the article, "about one of the most influential authors of speculative fiction. I have rewritten many of our articles about her stories in the last few years, while building up to rewriting this, so I've gone quite deep into the source material, and I believe it to be comprehensive. I think it's no secret that I'm a fan of her writing, but I've done my best to be dispassionate ..."! - I have a peer review open for Clara Schumann, another influential woman, - for a change I wrote almost nothing of the article, it's a collaboration of earlier and present users, which I love. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks : I'll do my best, but you know my reluctance to review content in areas I am not familiar with, and Schumann deserves musically knowledgeable reviewers; if you send it to FAC, though, I'll review the prose. I'm also extremely busy at the moment, and have been struggling to find the time to complete a source review I began a while back. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I plan to send it to FAC, and would be better off if you reviewed the prose before that ;) - Seriously: that's an article by many authors, and some unification in prose style would be good, which I - as not a native speaker - can't supply. It just received a thorough GA review by Reaper Eternal, and afterwards Chuckstreet worked miracles on the references, so technical matters should be fine. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I really am very tight for time: I'll do my best. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

One of my favourite authors - thank you for your efforts! –xenotalk 15:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! It was a lot of work, but very satisfying work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
—— SerialNumber  54129  18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Received, with thanks, . Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request
An experienced editor who does a lot of good editing but occasionally ignores WP:BLPPRIMARY has done it again here. The subject's full name and DOB are not published beyond public birth records. I've removed the material but was hoping you could revdel the revision (922731895) with the personal info exposed. In case you're wondering, multiple people (including me) have attempted to discuss WP:BLPPRIMARY with the editor at their talk page on previous occasions (e.g., ), but this still happens. I've collaborated with that editor on a successful DYK/GA, so I know they can do good work, but this seems to be a problem area. Thanks for any help. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you. I have also left them a note. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Here I go again...
...on my own seeking your advice.😁 I am confused, concerned and somewhat hesitant to openly express my views and that should not be happening in a venue where people are expected to openly express their views. I will admit that some of my concerns may be attributable to the residue of caution that lingers from my days as an NCHA judge with the power of the pen to mark a horse's performance as the winning run or deduct points from it for what appeared to be a penalty that occurred within seconds during that 2½ minute run. There was always the chance that it may not have been a penalty at all; but rather, an illusion created by the angle at which I was viewing the performance...iow, perspective. Only a review of the video would confirm if I had marked it correctly, and a review could only occur if my score was contested. Considering the amount of $$ that was at stake (typically 5 to 6 figures), contested scores were relatively common. I'm happy to say that the videos actually served to boost my confidence as a judge, and I eventually resigned with no black marks against me. With regards to how the latter relates to what I'm involved in today, let's just say I have an inkling of what goes on in the minds of admins who are determined to do the right thing, and as you already know, I have the utmost respect for you and Tony, and greatly value your opinions. My biggest concern at the moment is over the path some editors have chosen when responding to the POV of editors with whom they oppose - after all, their iVotes greatly effect the outcome.

The beehive reaction at the dramah boards is even more disconcerting, especially in cases of wrongthink. Vendettas and attempts to rid oneself of political opposition often materializes under separate cover making it harder to detect - and I may be mistaken, but there appears to be political bent present which tends to distract from and lessen the importance of the actual issue. Regardless of the motivation, there is a fervor at ANI that makes this cowgirl think back to the Old West and Judge Roy Bean. No, I wasn't there - I read about it. 😁 I am also a bit concerned that the reaction to being offended has become the focus instead of it being on who made the offensive comment (which was rather insensitive), as well as the position that if I didn't find it offensive, you shouldn't, either; the latter being pure POV. If making offensive statements (perceived or otherwise) is protected speech on WP, then being offended by them should be equally protected, regardless of the topic. There are some parallels to the antisemitism discussion at ANI which are driving my overall concerns, the most important being the potential rise in thought police, wrongthink and actions against an editor for their personal POV. I can't help but wonder how the allegations of racism will be handled at AP2 after the ANI case is closed. Allegations of racism at AP2 are not difficult to find, most of which are not supported by anything but opinions based on guilt by association. If saying someone quoted an antisemitic statement is the same as accusing them of being antisemitic, the same should apply to similar statements about racism. True or false? Atsme Talk 📧 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've seen this, but I'm going to deal with more urgent things and then get back to you when I've had a chance to look into it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting - a month has passed. Atsme Talk 📧 01:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad. Slipped my mind. By tomorrow, if not sooner. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies once again for the delay. I had a major deadline in RL, and once that was past this also slipped my mind. I didn't want to respond immediately because I wanted to chew on your question a bit; so here's my response, one month of chewing later. Let me begin with the allegations of anti-semitism. You are quite correct in saying there is a thought-police-ish tone to some of the discussion at ANI and elsewhere. This isn't limited to the AP2 arena, by any means; in fact it tends to be the rule, rather than the exception, among a very large class of editors whose sole interest is a specific political arena. The presence of people with that attitude in a discussion, though, doesn't make the position they take incorrect. As I see it, the logic is straightforward. We cannot, and should not, police what people think. A hypothetical Editor X is free to believe that I am a pastafarian, for instance. However, we are a collaborative project, and Editor X is not free to denigrate my edits based on the claim that I am a pastafarian, unless they have solid evidence of this. Furthermore, if I say "Pastafarianism has not been clearly debunked" (This is a true statement, by the way, kind of by definition; I don't know how familiar you are with the idea) Editor X cannot take that to mean that I am a Pastafarian. I think you see what I'm getting at here. It doesn't matter that Sir Joseph withdrew the accusation that O300 was saying something anti-semitic, because the withdrawal was based only on the fact that O300 was quoting, and not on any realization about the quote itself. Therefore, it is very likely that a similar quote, or statement, in the future, would provoke a similar reaction; and therefore, SJ needed to be restricted from making it. You may notice that I haven't said anything about taking offense, here; and honestly, I don't think it's especially relevant. What matters is really the substance of what you say. Ad hominem comments with no further relevance to someone's editing are unacceptable. Comments about an editor's POV may be relevant to their editing, and therefore necessary in some contexts, but they need to be backed up by evidence; if allegations without evidence are also unacceptable. And by "evidence", I spefically mean "evidence that an editor is unwilling to neutrally summarize the most reliable sources about the topic". To go back to SJ and O300; the comment that was highlighted was not what most reliable sources consider to be anti-semitism. Therefore, someone who insists that it was shouldn't be editing things related to anti-semitism. With respect to racism, and such; "Editor X voted for politician X, and therefore is a racist" isn't acceptable evidence. "Editor X said [diff] that indigenous people aren't entitled to the same rights as other Canadian citizens" would be evidence of racial prejudice, and grounds for removal from the topic (I chose the topic at random). And yes, it's true that there's a value judgement built into that last assessment; but it's more or less a fact that today, most sources that Wikipedia has defined to be reliable operate within the framework that all human beings are entitled to certain basic rights. If an editor has trouble operating within that framework, then Wikipedia isn't for them.  So I guess the short answer to your question is "not quite", because IMO "saying someone quoted an antisemitic statement" is not the same as "accusing them of being antisemitic", and therefore the same doesn't apply to accusations of racism. I encourage you to bring more attention to unfoudned accusations of racism (or accusations made in the wrong place) that you see. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An excellent clarification - thank you. Validation of one’s own thoughts is not only refreshing, it is energizing. Atsme Talk 📧 12:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been selected as an election commissioner for 2019's ArbCom election
Greetings! Thank you for volunteering to serve as an election commission for WP:ACE2019. Following the community discussion at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission, you have been selected as an election commissioner for this year's election. Best of luck! — xaosflux  Talk 00:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Vanamonde. Hope you will do your best in the elections for a better Arbcom. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice going, Vanamonde! Congratulations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference
I have no idea what I am asking, but I am asking anyway and you are free to say no, I don't have time, whatever. Gog says I need someone to do a source review on the FA nomination. Is that something you would be willing to do? Do you need me to e-mail you the papers/journal articles I was sent by Siegel and Cobble, if you can do it? Truly, if it isn't something you have time for, I totally get it and have no problems if that is the case. Thanks for all you do. SusunW (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try,, but I'm really short on time at the moment, thanks to RL stuff. It's very kind of Gog, but I owe him a completed source review first, one that I've already taken too much time on...if I do get around to it, and I need things emailed, I will be sure to ask. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to worry Vanamonde93, totally understand real world commitments. I'm sure someone will get it done. I appreciate your considering it. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request
I wonder if you ask Stefka to insert a book into the article with their URL. (see:1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It really makes hard and bothering to follow the material from the source without URL! There is access to some of them and ater you ask he provided them, why didn't he provided them at the first.Saff V. (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCEACCESS. No necessity to include URLs, whatsoever. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * but these two articles continually are being edited and one of them is under sanction.Saff V. (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fail to see relevance; help for vetting is that way. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to provide urls for sources, so I'm not going to ask Stefka Bulgaria for anything. You could try asking nicely. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Me thinks that someone needs a vacation
Any reason, as to why Abhijeet Safai may not be indefinitely blocked or else, at minimum, given a ACDS TBan from ARBIPA?

See this, this and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_141.

Now, over Vivek Agnihotri and corresponding t/p. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've wondered for a while what this user's deal is; I've been quite concerned with a number of their activities. I'll take a look later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't the time today, I'm afraid. may be willing to give them a tban, but I think what we're really seeing here is a COI/CIR issue. Loth as I am to send you to ANI, that might be the place to go (with the caveat that I haven't looked closely at their recent editing, and cannot for at least another day). Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Going to ANI is seldom useful; take your time :-) I read somewhere (can't find it, now) that Bish is busy in her RL, too .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You also left no opportunity to be abusive towards him, reverted him on urgent basis -- it wasn't vandalism (do you say it is vandalism?), there is no deadline ... sort things out with less friction. You also reverted text to your liking elsewhere on the article without any explanation on the waiting talk page section. This is more of a content dispute. --Jaydayal (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've taken a look. This user's conduct is beyond the pale, and they need a topic ban. I have, unfortunately, had a content dispute with them a couple of years ago. Since both of you have taken a look at that discussion, I wonder if you would be willing to do the needful? Otherwise, I intend to take this to AE.  That said, Godric, you need to dial it back a little, too. Vehemence rarely helps your case; and you have enough people looking to sanction you as it is. Don't hand them an excuse on a silver platter. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, FTR, Abhijeet Safai received a discretionary sanctions alert in February this year, and so all of their recent behavior may be taken into consideration when enforcing discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair advice to me, I agree. :-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban implemented. El_C 17:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that V93 meant something more broad than only Vivek Agnihotri? Per me, he has been a net-negative in all India-related articles .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My own awareness extends to that immediate problem. But if you see problematic edits in Indian topics BLPs, overall, please feel free to bring that to my attention. The topic ban may be expanded, also under WP:ARBIPA, providing required awareness criteria are fulfiled. El_C 17:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William Barr
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William Barr. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

GMO/AE
Thanks for the very kind words, and I don't want to pester you if you are busy. But I want to let you know that I'm actually not blind to what you referred to. I'm quite aware of it. I was just trying to keep the peace, and the focus. I'm going to try to guide the editor in what I think is the direction that you want. I'm just going to try to do it with as little collateral damage as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and that's good to know. I hope your efforts are successful. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg MSGJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
 * The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
 * A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ygm
On the off chance you check here before your inbox. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Silicon Valley BART extension
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Silicon Valley BART extension. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Dire Wolf (song)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for telling me such important information about Wikipedia!

Peterwu2019 (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * No problem. Happy editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edits on Babri Masjid
I don't know why you revert my edit on removing word 'some'. I also admit that belief is not universal but the word 'some' reflected here this. Here some reflects many sections in Hinduism. Can you use these words for Vatican or Mecca?-- Prongs 31  05:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a false equivalence. The Vatican or Mecca have developed a certain cultural significance over centuries, which is clearly attested to in reliable sources. Reasonable comparisons related to Hinduism might be Varanasi or Tirupati. The narrative around this specific site in Ayodhya is different. Like it or not, what you or I know about this is irrelevant; what matters is the narrative in reliable sources, and there is no consensus among them that this site has that level of universal significance. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The babri masjid page
Hey Vanamonde, I just found that you edited the babri masjid page. Thanks for your efforts on Wikipedia! I wanted to ask you to please if you can change the first line which states that ""believed by some Hindus to be the birthplace of Hindu deity Rama"" to ""where earlier temple existed"". As now it's very much clear that earlier there was a Temple there as the underlying structure found was scientifically tested by the ASI team. After this, it was claimed that there were remains of an ancient Hindu temple under the disputed structure. Thank you. Obliged, Varahmir Varahmir (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Wikipedia's policies give more weight to scholarly sources than to court rulings; the supreme court's decisions don't affect the way in which we describe the situation, though the ruling itself, of course, is discussed in the appropriate places. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion on content-quality
Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson is a featured list?! That looks like some kind of barebones stub to me or I might be better off writing one FL a day .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The prose requirements of FLs are minimal; a lot of the featured status seems to have to do with formatting niceties. Of the two FLs I've written, one was considerably less work than most GAs, and the other was tons of work, but all of it in formatting and referencing. But the process is what it is, and I would find it difficult to argue that this article didn't meet the criteria: we just have to assume that for most FLs, the work required isn't the same as an FA. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. I now recall saying something to similar effects, months back .....  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tim Pool
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tim Pool. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sergey Naydin
User:DerHexer has asked for a deletion review of Sergey Naydin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 03:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rojava
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bruna björn
user:Bruna björn keeps trying to add an image to his sandbox, but the trigger is identifying it as bad. I cannot see what he is trying to add, so could you check to see if he is trying to add something inappropriate? CLCStudent (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed; they've tried to add a gif of someone ejaculating, four times, along with some associated commentary that suggests clearly that they are NOTHERE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is exactly what my suspicion was. CLCStudent (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft
The Draft:Nicotine Salts is useless and I created a new article on nicotine salt. Is there a tag I can add to the draft to get it deleted? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD would have applied, as the draft had been abandoned before that; now that you've edited, many admins would hesitate. MfD is always an option, but it's rather a waste of time. You could tag it for speedy deletion with a custom rationale, stating that you've created a version in mainspace and that a draft is no longer necessary; but what's the hurry to get it deleted anyway? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry. I don't want to see two articles in articlespace. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)