User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 33

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Deor • Spartaz • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
 * A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
 * Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration
 * The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
 * Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

2001 edits
Your name is listed as a possible co-nominator in speculative fiction at FAC. Many followers of Clarke think of 2001 as a work of speculative fiction, both as book and as film. The instructions for FAC are currently suggesting co-nominators for editors not experienced in this process. For the most part it looks as if the citations which were just templated can be readily restored within ten or fifteen minutes of editing, because the copy edits already done by GoCE often moved closing clauses at the end of sentences into the middle of revised sentences, which removed the "closing citations" of sentences and paragraph. This was flagged as an issue recently. The remark left above (as I have linked it) is that this nomination would require an experienced co-nominator and, given your background interests, I wonder if you would consider doing this as a co-nomination? CodexJustin (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly very interested in Clarke's work, as my username implies. I am somewhat less comfortable working with film articles; I find the details of production, casting, marketing, and box office performance (which form the bulk of a film article) to be incredibly tedious. I am happy to go over the other parts of the article in detail, go over the prose in general, and potentially be a co-nom; but I need some time. I'm quite busy at the moment in RL, and I've committed to being a coordinator for WP:ACE2019, which takes priority. If you're willing to wait, I'm happy to help. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds fairly close to my own approach and the time frame can include waiting periods when things are busy. My own reading is that the film production sections like casting, marketing and box office are fairly well put together, while it would be nice to do a more careful reading of some of the writing sections of the collaboration of Clarke with Kubrick, the interpretation sections, and the legacy discussions. If your comment about 'willing to wait' means getting back to this sometime around Thanksgiving or maybe in December then let me know what is comfortable for you. CodexJustin (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are the parts of the article I would be more comfortable contributing to in any case. I don't think I'll be getting to it before December, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Checking in at the start of December to see how your schedule is at this time. Given your other Wikipedia tasks, you had previously mentioned December as a possible month for looking at FAC. Let me know if its still possible sometime this month or maybe next month. There are 2 GA articles I've been looking at, one for 2001 and the other for The Favourite, if your time allows at some point. CodexJustin (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Tentatively, I can do some work on it starting later this week or early next week. I can't make promises though. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Those were nice edits over the week-end for 2001. It'll be nice to see the next set of edits. Let me know if I can do something by way of back-up research or comment. CodexJustin (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hah well that was just copy-editing while I refreshed my memory as to the plot. The substance is yet to come... Vanamonde (Talk) 07:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any holiday plans for 2001 edits? I may not be around as much during the holiday weeks up to New Year and I wasn't sure if you might get back to the article before or after the New Year. Seasons greetings. CodexJustin (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Season's greetings to you too. I was planning on it, yes, but there's been some breaking news that needed (still needs) my attention. I'll do my best. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A Happy New Year. I recently returned from the holidays and should be able to join in on the edits for 2001 depending on how your schedule looks and all your edits for the Citizenship article. Any thoughts about returning to the film article sometime this month or next month? CodexJustin (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten, CodexJustin, but as I said, RL has been keeping me busy, and what little time I've had has been taken up by things requiring more timely attention. I will do my best to get to this as soon as I can. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Future RFAs
If the RFAs for Rosguill and Newslinger (both of who you nominated) do succeed, which is already likely, I have five nominees you may consider: I'm not nominating them, I'm just giving you a future suggestion, doesn't guarantee it will happen. ミラP 16:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * retired
 * retired
 * retired
 * I've seen most of those folks around, but am not well acquainted with any; I will keep them in mind, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Miraclepine, for your consideration. I am much too busy in real life to take RFA on though and I doubt my views at AFD would necessarily result in success. Reywas92Talk 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Since we've been losing more admins than we've promoted them in the past six months, I'm aiming for a goal of three new admins a month. I have dozens of candidates shortlisted, and I'll publicly post each one only if one declines. ミラP 01:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to say so, . Thanks. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I just sent you a shortlist of thirty-six prospective candidates. Although I've asked you to keep the contents private, I will make an exception for informing of their removal from the final shortlist given the comment. ミラP 18:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just changed my mind about the "keep the contents private" thing, Vanamonde. I just read this and I've decided to loosen things up to allow existing Wikipedia administrators access to the prospective candidate list. Oh, and the WP:ORCP archives could be of some help. Hope that gets up back at 500. ミラP 03:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Chellaney
Thank you for cleaning up the Brahma Chellaney page, including removing stuff that relied only on primary sources. You have tagged the need for the page to have greater sourcing, especially secondary sourcing. Would you like me to address that issue by incorporating new secondary sources? That would allow us to include important information on the subject of the article. Of course, I won't touch the tags but let you decide whether they should stay or go. Best regards. Alpinespace (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I should point out, for what it's worth, that this article was the subject of a deletion review this month after the AfD claimed that it had copyvio content, although no source was cited and none of the deletion logs mentioned any copyright issue. During the deletion review, several editors commented that G11 was not applicable. Yet, two days after the speedy deletion was overturned and the page restored, another editor contended that the article was G11 and sought its speedy deletion. That is when you intervened yesterday. Given that Wikipedia is a system of collaborative editing, isn't there a rule against raising the same issue or seeking the same action immediately after a deletion review has restored a page? Alpinespace (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail from Amorymeltzer
~ Amory  (u • t • c) 21:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * responded; we're good to go, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of R. Carlos Nakai
Hello! Your submission of R. Carlos Nakai at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Xhubham mishra
might need a TBan .... &#x222F; WBG converse 15:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably time. I'm too close to the topic, though; I've edited very many of the things they've worked on., I wonder if you could take a look? A final warning is warranted, at the very least. There's original research going on (not supported by the sources), edit-warring , and some RGW commentary . At the very least, they need to read up on how sourcing works. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Harumph. What's RGW? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Tendentious_editing. It's another of the damned three letter acronyms, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was reading it as "Right Wing" . From what I have seen TE is the more commonly used word on Wikitalk than RGW. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, TE I can understand, DBigXray, and I did actually warn them against TE (politicizing film articles). BTW thank you for your excellent DS alerts, they may well come in useful. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The user has been blocked for 31 hours by, and has apparently already evaded the block. Bishonen &#124; talk 05:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I thought blocked them for abusing Cyphoidbomb...be that as it may, block evasion should probably mean a longer block, yes? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't block them initially. I've subsequently blocked their IP for about the same amount of time. Assuming they use the next 31 or so hours to figure out how to edit constructively and maybe not lob personal attacks and so on, I'm hopeful the disruption will be abated. If, WBOG, you find that the disruption continues, please contact admins. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all of you! deserves some form of sanction as well, me thinks.   &#x222F; WBG converse 08:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Teja srinivas is doing himself no favors with a remarkably aggressive approach, but an admin would be hard put to block him for calling your edits "vandalism" when you used rollback on him first. Don't do that, please. The editor interaction utility is not functioning at the moment, so I don't want to accidentally violate INVOLVED by sanctioning them. One of the others may take a look. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, me thought that calling my edits as vandalism would be among the last of all reasons to sanction?! It's pretty clear political POV pushing coupled with edit-warring, despite mine leaving a note at his t/p days back about why lead section does not necessitate citations.  &#x222F; WBG converse 01:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's riding for a fall. But don't allow him or anyone else to muddy the waters with "but but rollback abyuuz". Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for R. Carlos Nakai
--valereee (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You have been named here
On WP:AE. diff. The ping most likely did not fire up due to the lack of a signature. (or did it ?) In any case this note is guaranteed to work. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

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

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Partial blocks.
 * The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news
 * Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating.  There is currently one template: uw-pblock.
 * When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration
 * Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
These are some long term vandalism from on People's Mujahedin of Iran's political leaders Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi.

Massoud Rajavi

 * Change infobox from "Officeholder" to "Criminal" [diff]
 * Change infobox from "Officeholder" to "Criminal" [diff]
 * Change infobox from "Officeholder" to "Person" [diff] (Massoud Rajavi is a political leader of a political group).
 * Add information about the partners of Massoud Rajavi's wives saying they're related to Rajavi, even though the partners of his partners are not related to Rajavi.[diff diff]
 * Adds information about a "prosecution" from a source that doesn't even mention Massoud Rajavi. [diff]
 * Removes [Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran politicians] [diff]
 * Removes [Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran politicians] [diff]
 * Removes [Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran politicians] [diff]
 * Removes [Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran politicians] [diff]
 * Removes [Category:National Council of Resistance of Iran members] [diff]

Maryam Rajavi

 * Change infobox from "President" to "Criminal" [diff]
 * Change infobox from "President" to "Person" [diff]
 * Removes [Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran politicians] [diff]
 * Removes [Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran politicians] [diff]

I tried reverting some of these edits, but he has reverted them back. Barca (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde? can you check this please? Barca (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying sooner. These edits are not vandalism. Do not refer to them as such. The definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is very precise; vandalism is activity that is deliberately intended to disrupt the purpose of the encyclopedia. These edits are very obviously made in good faith. All of the labels in question are in fact disputed, and should be determined via consensus on the talk page; certainly, for contentious individuals, "infobox person" is the best choice. I see a glaring absence of talk page discussion on the subject; please take your disagreements there. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke review
Hi Vanamonde, hope you are well. I saw that you reviewed the first GAN for Emilia Clarke. I have been working on the article, especially addressing your remarks about the possible copyright violation along with the short prose. I was wondering if you could take a look to see if there are any glaring issues that would need to be addressed before another possible GAN. Thank you! --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm far too busy in RL to take that sort of thing on at the moment, sorry. I seem to recall that the issues I raised were very basic, so I don't know that my opinion on the new version would be more informed than that of another reviewer in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate the fast reply! --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Scheduling the edits
It looks like the 2001 film section on your Talk page has gone to archive from early January. Any thoughts about returning to the article upgrades for featured article improvements maybe later this month or next month? CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to do this, but I really cannot commit. Real life has gotten very very busy, and I've been unable to devote any substantive time to Wikipedia; and content building genuinely requires substantive time, not the few minutes I can spare now and then. I don't want to hold you up. If the article still needs attention when I do find the time, I'll see what I can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please watch Golla (caste)
an editor called Koudilya3 is removing my article with proper reference in Golla (caste) page so please check the page brother. and take necessary action on it ,please please, please, please,  please. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on that talk page; essentially, you need to be more careful with respect to the sources you are using. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

MEK
I was very surprised that the ping was not sent, it's not normal really! Anyway, I wonder if you check this discussion and recent edits to of MEK article. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that my pings didn't work. Would you leave a comment for this disscusion (first part absolutely)? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you to let me know your opinion about this discussion top of "Ypatch's violation of the restriction" section. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the slack, Vanamonde, while I take a break from the vortex that is the MEK article. El_C 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but don't get too comfortable, I don't have much time on my hands these days ;) Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Mail call
Bishonen &#124; talk 16:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC).
 * replied. Sorry, been dealing with this crap. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG such crap. I'm definitely not getting into that. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC).
 * Welcome to my (former?) life! El_C 17:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Brother check Golla (caste) talk page
Bro, I submitted quote with reference as you asked please see it brother and check on it Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Golla page
Brother, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Mysore is not his job it is the Government Department who Published this book Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

One Doubt
Brother I dont know how to explain you about Yadava (golla). so can i add krishnadevaraya to the page Yadava directly. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. You need a better source. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closed
An arbitration case regarding User:Alex Shih has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion last year to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Alex Shih requested it within one year. Because Alex Shih has not requested the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mahavira
Mahavira, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. Parrot (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert Hunter (lyricist)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Hunter (lyricist) 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 Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help!
, Please read this. Can you add matter about the violence by Muslims in the North East Delhi riots article please? For example, this. DBigXray, S. M. Nazmus Shakib and some other editors are not allowing us to do so, the talk page has many citable references which you can see yourself!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, just try to deduce those citations by looking at the... entire talk page. Don't forget the archives! El_C 21:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and the talk page history for the citations that were removed along with BLP violating comments.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , how did you get this article at "winkreport"? Who wrote it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have been reading that talk page fairly carefully. I haven't bothered to respond there, because so many of the contributions have been made by people who are unwilling or unable to read and comprehend our policies. Our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view requires us to give due weight to reliable sources. The vast majority of the sources you have provided, including the link above, are not reliable; which makes me rather concerned that you, too, are not willing or able to understand how Wikipedia functions. Please provide better sources supporting your arguments if you want to be taken seriously. Further use of unreliable sources, and further original research and name-calling is likely to be grounds for a topic ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have never called anyone by any objectionable name. I have avoided original research once I learnt what it meant. I don't have the time to add anything to that article now and so, I will take a break for now, please add material to show that Muslims also indulged in rioting and arson. You have added matter to other articles to make them, "good articles", so please do the same to this article also., you can click on that link and read who the author is and believe me, I am not responsible for the "winkreport"!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
 * Royal standard of England (1406–1603).svg Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
 * 🇺🇸 Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
 * Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
 * Pirate Flag.svg CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
 * The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included 🇺🇸 L293D, 🇻🇪 Kingsif, 🇦🇶 Enwebb, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski and 🇳🇵 CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 🇺🇸 L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Money emoji
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Athaenara • DeltaQuad
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
 * A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news
 * Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present.  You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
 * The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A Wizard of Earthsea
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 4, 2020. 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/March 4, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, I'll try to take a look when I have a moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for the article "about one of the most influential works of fantasy, compared frequently to the works of Tolkien and CS Lewis"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure, . Have you ever read the book? Though originally written for children, I'd argue it's well worth an adult's time, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll put it on an imaginary wishlist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Strange behavior
Hi, please keep an eye on User:शिव साहिल who is randomly reverting edit in the name of Sock puppet or making changes which can be categorize as political bias towards a ruling right-wing BJP party. Please check his recent User Contribution and you'll know what weird changes he has made in various right-wing related article.Thanks--202.78.236.101 (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access restored
Bit belated, but thanks for letting me speak in January. I might still need that page again someday, but two months of using this new sig have made me bored. And no, that doesn't mean I'll revert back to confusing bots and gadgets after growing reaccustomed to offline learning; I'll just find new odd habits to grow out of, like fixing model airplane articles to rhyme. You have fun, too, with whatever it is you do for kicks around here! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert Hunter (lyricist)
The article Robert Hunter (lyricist) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Hunter (lyricist) 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 Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

it evades my question entirely
Hello, Vanamonde, I did not find your question. I think you meant to ask whether I understood the reason for my topic ban. Correct me if I'm wrong. The ban was arbitrary, but it was clearly explained in the notice from the banning admin as being due to edit warring. The way I understand edit warring is that it is treating Wikipedia as if it were a one-man show, which it is not. There are many teams of people that make this project possible. To fundamentally change an article, as I stubbornly tried to do, is not possible, because Wikipedia is like a democracy. Consensus is required. I did not actually have consensus for my POV, despite wrongly claiming to have it at a couple points. I understand better how things work now. This has been a valuable learning experience and I believe I am ready to have my full editing privileges restored. However, I am also ready to wait another 3-6 months before making another appeal seeing as this one has failed. That's just the way it goes, but I hope I can count on your support next time. As Bishonen said, I can still edit most of Wikipedia. I will probably never be a very prolific editor, and am fine with whatever happens. Cheers.Sotuman (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can, . I still don't see evidence that you've understood the entirety of the problem, which cannot be separated from the pseuoscientific nature of that topic. I'd prefer that you use the time to the next appeal to reflect on that, rather than to restate your current position here. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not sure I can... what? You used an Ellipsis, but I don't know what you're trying to say because there are different ways to finish that thought. You've claimed the problem to be inseparable from the pseudo-scientific nature of the article, which is an interesting connection to draw attention to. Putting the article in that category wasn't my doing. I saw serious problems with an article, and I edit-warred to advance my POV. In fact, this is the problem, and it was effectively nipped in the bud, by an arbitrary topic ban, which is allowed for articles categorized as pseudoscience, and which I'm fine with. But, the whole branch doesn't need to be lopped off.
 * If you think that my point of view itself is the problem, that would only be your own point of view. As far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, it is not wrong for any editor to have a personal POV. The problem is when a POV is advanced in a manner that does not respect the consensus of other editors. See, we personally do not have to agree on everything to both be good editors, because Wikipedia is set up so that many different people can come together and build something that is still overall, a good thing that accomplishes its purpose. Wikipedia is not like the holy scriptures, claiming to be absolutely true, but it does do a fine job of representing the world's knowledge, i.e. science.
 * Not a single person knows everything, we all are regularly mistaken about various things, especially about each other, and it is possible for entire societies to be seriously wrong about something. If Wikipedia were intended to be reserved only for people with a perfect POV, there would be no one left to make contributions. People might have to navigate life with only themselves to look to as authorities on what is absolutely true. This is what some people try to do anyway, but at least there's Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't perfect and doesn't claim to be, but it generally does a good job informing people on current science, and I'm 100% on board with this even though my personal POV differs from a lot of other editors. I'm okay with being the minority report.
 * You the man(converse) 20:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By "I'm not you can" I meant "[I'm not sure you can] count on my support the next time", which was the question you asked. Your response doesn't change how I feel. Yes of course we can disagree on things and still collaborate on things; but it's not just because we can do so by respecting consensus among editors, it's because Wikipedia doesn't care about personal POVs; our articles need to be based strictly on the points of view in reliable, independent sources. So when I judge whether a person should edit a contentious topic or not, my standard is not "do they agree with my POV about that situation", but rather "will they be able to edit in a policy compliant manner in that topic". That is what you would have to convince me you can do, in order to support an appeal. I'm not going to spell out what you need to say to do that, because that would defeat the purpose; but regardless, I suggest you save it for your appeal, because I do not have the authority to overturn your sanction in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I didn't ask a question, I expressed hope for a certain outcome. You have graciously taken the time to explain some of the workings of Wikipedia despite your own uncertainty, and this causes my hope to soar.


 * Why are there contentious topics? Could it be that editors have different POVs on which source is reliable and independent? Why don't all such sources agree with each other? Fundamentally, Wikipedia is a representation of different points of view of many different people, and cares a lot about these different POVs, because people are involved at every step of the way. It was people who first wrote what is now considered a source, based on their point of view. Different people decide whether the source is reliable, whether it is true, and whether to use it, based on their POV. Other people believe other sources on the same topic that say different things, based on their POV, and work towards consensus. An editor should not be indefinitely shut out from the forming of a consensus on a contentious topic simply for having a different POV.


 * Incidentally, I was not indefinitely topic-banned for having a different POV, but for failing to comply with the policy on edit-warring, and this is noted in the ban notice that was posted to my talk page by the banning admin. I'm not likely to do it again because I understand that edit-warring is no way to improve Wikipedia!


 * You told me in your statement on my first appeal "...you haven't explained what it was you did wrong, and why you're unlikely to make the same mistake again; and absent such a statement, I would be opposed to lifting any sanction." I realize that you don't have to power to single-handedly overturn my sanction, but you do have the power to support my next appeal, and it is the support of people like you that WILL overturn this sanction at my next appeal.
 * You the man(converse) 08:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)