User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 35

Jainism
Since your pertinent comment, I've done a great deal of work on the article, others ... less. Still, it's now a deal more concise (in both senses). What do you think? Feel free to comment here or on the review page as you see fit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, job completed: I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's certainly a lot better, and in my view certainly over the bar now. I hope it's to everyone's satisfaction, including yours ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Vastly improved, certainly; thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Ubico
Vanamonde, I apologize for the late response, unfortunately I have been very busy as of late. In regards to the change I made on the Jacobo Árbenz page, I still stand by my original summary when I made my change. I removed “U.S. backed” from before “dictator Jorge Ubico” as it was unsupported and conveyed an incorrect idea. I have done extensive research on this particular topic, and this statement is largely incorrect. I went through the effort of checking every source I could and nothing supported it. You stated that is was “explicitly supported by reliable sources,” but none actually seem to exist. The only source I was able to find supporting it was a research article by the Institute of Caribbean Studies, and even it stated that the U.S. never directly backed Jorge Ubico intentionally. All this resulted in me making my edit.

Best Regards, CM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.180.60 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the explanation; but have you in fact read the sources cited in the article? They make United States support for Ubico quite clear (indeed if it's not mentioned in detail, at least part of the reason is that it's not controversial). Vanamonde (Talk) 06:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde, I have in fact read every available source. In addition to this I have also researched further using articles that go more in depth about the subject. I think if anything this is a misinterpretation of available information. The articles provided as sources rarely mention Ubico’s direct relationship to the U.S. because there wasn’t one. When you use the term “United States-backed” what does it entail? In the vast majority of cases it suggests that the U.S. government directly supported them financially, militarily, and politically. None of these are true for Jorge Ubico. The U.S. government never directly backed him in any of those ways. They worked with him to some extent, but they did not “back” him in any particular capacity. Suggesting that because the U.S. recognized and worked with Ubico’s administration they “backed” him is an incredibly flawed proposition. By that same logic you would call nearly every current world government “United States-backed.” I’ve spent significant time on this subject and discussed it with educators to come to this conclusion. Saying Jorge Ubico was “United States-backed” is not only largely false, but it also conveys a misleading and incorrect notion. I hope this helps you understand why I made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.180.60 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this source? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That particular source was actually one of the main ones I’ve used in my research. I have read it in its entirety and focused on the portions pertaining to U.S. involvement with Jorge Ubico. In fact it largely supports my previous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.227 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m willing to show you direct quotes from the document that reinforce my statement if you want to see them. Otherwise I think I’ve supported my point enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.180.60 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're getting into the weeds with respect to the sources, you need to begin a discussion on the talk page of the article, and explain your reasons there. I will note that I'm not the only one to have reverted you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Question in connection to your Main-page-editor proposal/RfC
, hello there. Let me begin by thanking you for starting an RfC about granting permissions to non-admins to edit the Main Page. I'm also saddened that your RfC received so many opposes (with legitimate concerns that I can appreciate). Nevertheless, I believe that you still succeeded by bringing this important issue to the minds of many Wikipedians for further and future discussion. But I'm also writing to you to ask you about the Portal:Current events/In the news, which as you know has been fully-protected since June 2017. If you look at this portal's protection log you'll notice that throughout its history it was either autoconfirmed protected (semi) or admin/sysop protected (full). Can you guess which protection level was never tried? That's right, extended confirmed protected was *never* tried. Do you think we could make the case to have this portal/ITN extended confirmed protected so more editors can contribute? Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  16:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. To be honest, I'm not very familiar with the current events portal, or with portals in general. I don't think the broader community has come to a consensus on their purpose either. Also, the portal appears to have been full-protected ten years ago. Given all of that, I don't know that I want to get involved with an effort to reduce it's protection level. Sorry. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are correct, Current Events has been fully-protected since August 2010 (my mistake) and a great loss for the average editor IMO. Anyhow, thanks for replying and my sympathies to you as I know how discouraged you must feel about your elaborately crafted proposal not taking off. But cheer up, some great folks like Dweller, Chris Troutman and Puddleglum supported you :) Best regards,   History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  20:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to censor edits made by other editors on the page Reservation in India
Even after providing citations and following editing norms on wikipedia, you have been repeatedly trying to censor edits made by other editors. Kindly do not engage in such activities. Just a reminder that you are welcome to reframe edits made by other users but not delete them completely.
 * I am not the only one to have asked you to read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Please do so now. Your edits do not following our policies and guidelines, which is why they were removed. Until your edits conform to policy, they will continue to be removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1985 Gujarat riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bania ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1985_Gujarat_riots check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1985_Gujarat_riots?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train
Thank you for fixing my dates. Sorry for the inconstancy. I try to stick with dmy, but a mdy came through in the prose. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and no worries. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Jammu and Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jammu and Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Most?
Re:Wondering if there was something you disagreed with, or if it's just that you would have framed or phrased the issue differently (which is only natural)? Asking because I am genuinely curious about your opinion, especially if there was some point of "disagreement". Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a habit of overqualifying...nothing I disagreed with, just hadn't verified all the source details Johnbod mentioned. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha. I share that habit! Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3
Vanamonde, I was thinking that it might be safer, even though you're working on promoted Prep 3 to Queue 3 at the moment, if I updated the "next prep" to Prep 5. That way, if someone wants to start filling Prep 4, which is empty, it won't look like it's the next one to be promoted after Prep 3, since it already has been.

Is that okay with you? Please let me know as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * totally fine, go ahead. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'll do so. You might want to add an "inuse" template to Prep 3 the same way you did to Queue 3, to warn people away while you're working on them. When you're done, we'll have a full Queue 3 and a cleared Prep 3, the latter ready for folks to use. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Rómulo Escobar Bethancourt
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1985 Gujarat riots
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1985 Gujarat riots 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 SerAntoniDeMiloni -- SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1985 Gujarat riots
The article 1985 Gujarat riots you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1985 Gujarat riots 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 SerAntoniDeMiloni -- SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Listing GA
Just a note that I think you still need to list An Unbelievable Story of Rape somewhere under Good articles/Social sciences and society. Thanks again for the review! — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder...it's a tricky one; where would you put it? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a bit of a tricky one. Magazines and print journalism has some news articles in both of its sections, with not much rhyme or rhythm from what I can see. Probably "Journalism and newspapers" is the better fit here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration
 * A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand
The article Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

DYK for Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Whitey on the Moon
Hello! Your submission of Whitey on the Moon 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! Edwardx (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Learning from a Ping
Reposting your comment from Dasman Diabetes Institute's deletion discussion - "if a discussion isn't getting enough attention, notifying relevant wikiprojects can be helpful, so long as you take care to phrase that notification neutrally. It can also be helpful to ping editors with a lot of experience on Wikipedia editing related subjects, particularly those who have worked on bringing articles through our peer review processes (GAN and FAC in particular). In the latter case, though, you have to make sure you're not accidentally selecting people who subscribe to a particular POV."


 * Dear Vanamonde, I have a couple of questions. I got this point - notifying relevant wikiprojects.


 * Q1: Now, if I nominate an article for an AfD, is its OK/Allowed for me to Ping/notify relevant wikiprojects? (As far as, I am aware... If I can use Twinkle, then I can list an AfD with a particular category of discussion.)


 * Q2: Pinging editors with a lot of experience in a particular subject or in overall Wikipedia itself? What should be considered?


 * Q3: I have faced similar kinda situation with another hospital - Care Hospitals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Care_Hospitals) a month ago. Personally, I feel a hospital should either pass WP:GEO or WP:NCORP. But, in today's time, many commercial hospitals are trying to build or sustain their Wikipedia presence without adding any encyclopedic value. This can be actually seen by looking at their editing history or pattern. In such cases, how one should proceed ahead? -Hatchens (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is generally okay to notify wikiprojects, yes. It is sometimes okay to ping editors who have a lot of expertise writing about related topics on Wikipedia. Neither of these are guaranteed to fix your third problem, for which I don't really have much advice; vaguely promotional articles for organizations that don't quite meet the notability guidelines have long been a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It means, it's more or less... case-to-case approach is the best way, but need to keep WP:CANVAS as well as other rules in mind. More than the notability, what I actually found (with my couple of months of editing), that certain IDs activates just for saving those articles and with just 10 edits under the belt they give reasons as if they are editing Wikipedia for so many years. I am 100% sure even after 100,000 edit, I wouldn't able to claim myself an expert on Wikipedia. I guess, we all have to live with this situation. - Hatchens (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick question about RfC
Hi Vanamonde, quick question about RfCs: Can someone restart a RfC just after another that included the same content was closed?

To be specific, this is about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Should_Rajavi's_quotation_regarding_killing_of_the_Kurds_be_included_in_the_article? this RfC], which includes the same quote as this other recently closed RfC. Thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * it depends on the circumstances; an RfC that found consensus should not generally be relitigated, but in this case, asking about a specific subset of the previous material is okay, given that the reasons are somewhat different. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fumio Tajima
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Date formats
About this edit, the numeric date formats are acceptable per MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATEFORMAT, and when the Use dmy dates template is used, the visual result is the same. 03:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True, this article only had the numerical date format. I usually run the script because software-generated dates are usually numeric and user-inserted ones are not, but there wasn't an inconsistency here, so my apologies if you prefer the former. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. --evrik (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1985 Gujarat riots
Hello! Your submission of 1985 Gujarat riots 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Whitey on the Moon
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thanks! It's not often that someone I have never encountered before stops off here to offer encouragement, so it's much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

2017 China–India border standoff and IPA DS
There has been a lot of traffic today to this article, involving some dramatic (unsourced) changes, so I upgraded the indefinite semi to ECP as an Arbitration enforcement action. But do you think it even falls within the bounds of IPA just by virtue of it involving India? Ditto for the question of whether I should add the IPA talk page notice to 2020 China–India skirmishes. El_C 04:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah I saw some of that...The substance of it is definitely covered by ARBIPA; one could make a wikilawyerish argument that those pieces of the article only about China (if there are any; conceivably, background about the Chinese government's internal machinations in Beijing) are not covered, but most of it relates to India directly. As such I'd say a notice is warranted, too, and potentially sanctions... Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks, Vanamonde. I appreciate the feedback, which confirms my original notion. I will go ahead and apply those notices. Thanks again. El_C 14:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo Armas scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Carlos Castillo Armas article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 26, 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/July 26, 2020, 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 recently, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; I've made one small tweak, but it looks good. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanamonde. Your edit takes it up to 1069; please remove something to get it below 1025. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, trimmed a bit. Does this work? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Turning Point USA on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
hey there, Hi i am Whiteraven335 ,a user User:Litti Chokha continuously modifying the reliably sourced content the article Kumaon Regiment as per their personal preferences WhiteRaven335 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how your edits are supported by the sources you are citing, and how Litti Chokha's edits meet the definition of vandalism, in the sense of a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 1985 Gujarat riots
— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about bludgenoning
Hi Vanamonde,

I have a question about whether is bludgeoning RfCs on the MEK page. For example, in this RfC, Mhhossein posted his vote + 6 other posts. I have not responded to those posts to avoid becoming part of the problem, but now Mhhossein started to insert objections from SharabSalam there (who is a topic-banned user). I told Mhhossein to stop, but he is ignoring my request. Bludgeoning is a big part of the reason why many closing editors tend to stay away from these RfCs. Is introducing objections from topic-banned users allowed? Is Mhhossein bludgeoning? What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the contentious nature of the material, and the tendency for poor argumentation, some amount of leeway is necessary in those RfCs. Objections from topic-banned users aren't helpful, and I'll leave a note to that effect on the talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

FA Mentoring
Hi Vanamonde,

I was wondering if you were still doing FAC mentoring?

If so, would you be willing to help mentor me through my first - I've been meaning to do this for some time, and having crossed my second year it's about time.

The article in question is the Fairness Project (a nonprofit that helps US groups set up ballots to change state law/constitutions directly) - there aren't any mentors on the list preferring organisations, so obviously it might not be in your interest, but given at least some interest in politics on your side I thought it worth a go. Please let me know if it's not :)

It's currently in the GOCE queue for a look over, esp MOS-wise, but while I've read the formal process I don't know about the wise steps to take first and how to go through the process itself.

Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for asking. You're correct in saying it's a little outside my wheelhouse; also, I hesitate to bring very contemporary topics to FAC, as quickly evolving articles are often hard to maintain at a given standard (articles on contemporary politics that I have worked on go to GAN at most). That said, it's not a bad article, and there's no harm in trying. Here's some things to consider before going to FAC. 1) Have you used all the available high-quality sources? Contemporary topics often aren't covered comprehensively in scholarly sources, but it's sometimes possible to find some useful ones (I had a quick look, and it seems as though an organization with an identical name in the UK is somewhat better known...). Even aside from scholarly sources, in-depth profiles are preferable to passing comments in articles about another topic. 2) Are all your sources good enough to meet the FA criteria? In skimming the article, I noticed footnote 5 (in this revision) is a primary source, used for a synthetic claim; this would definitely be a concern at FAC, and you should check for other instances (I'd grumble about this even at GAN). 3) Following on from that, make sure to check all the content in the article written by someone else against the sources used for it; that's one of the easiest ways for OR to creep into a quality article, as I've found to my cost. 4) Have you used all the content from high-quality reliable sources? One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness; if there's available, sourceable, information, you should use it (until length becomes a concern, obviously, which is only the case for very prominent topics). Once you've done all of this, you should look it over and ask whether there's obvious large gaps in the coverage; things which a reader would want to know that aren't covered. If there aren't large ones, then initiate an FAC, and sit back and await comments. I hope that's helpful. Best, [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde] (Talk) 17:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Malcolmxl5
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg John • TheCoffee • Tim!
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bbb23

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news
 * Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
 * The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
 * Royal standard of England (1406–1603).svg Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Graham Staines page
I have made a few changes to the Graham Staines page. 1- "It was alleged that Dara Singh was an activist of the Bajrang Dal, whose Odisha chapter was then being headed by Pratap. But in the rush to paint Pratap in negative hue, it was forgotten that the Justice D P Wadhwa Commission, which was set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had ruled out the involvement of either the Bajrang Dal or BJP in the crime. “There is no evidence to suggest that any of the persons involved in the crime was in fact a member of either the Bajrang Dal or BJP or any organization. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence... that there is involvement of any organisation, even that of Bajrang Dal, in the planning and execution of the crime,” the Wadhwa Commission had pointed out. The panel was set up after a three-member ministerial team of George Fernandes (then defence minister), Murli Manohar Joshi (then HRD minister) and Naveen Patnaik (then steel minister) visited the site of the murder and recommended a judicial probe." Source: The Times of India, which is an extremely anti-BJP newspaper https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/years-after-wadhwa-panel-clean-chit-media-links-pratap-to-dara-singh/articleshow/69603729.cms

2- Below is from a staunch anti-BJP Fact checking site/

"Moreover, they have also written, “Dara Singh of Bajrang Dal has been convicted in the case”, which is not true because the commission had reported that Singh was not a legitimate member of Bajrang Dal but was just a supporter. Even Police records suggest that he was just a sympathiser" of the Bajrang Dal.

Writer and activist Ram Puniyani writing about the Bajrang Dal vis-à-vis the Staines’ murder in his book The Politics of Anti-Christian Violence says:

“… there is no evidence that Bajrang Dal is involved in the present gruesome murder of Staines and his two little children. Moreover, in his statement, Pratap Chandra Sarangi, who is the state co-ordinator of Bajrang Dal in Orissa was categorical that re-conversion to Hinduism was not one of the objects of Bajrang Dal. In his affidavit he had stated that Bajrang Dal was not involved in gruesome murder and that Dara Singh was never a member of the Bajrang Dal.” Source: https://facthunt.in/posts/511/Fact-Check-:-Verifying-claims-about-BJP-MP-Pratap-Sarangi-being-involved-in-Graham-Stains-murder-in-1999

Ram Puniyani's view is also important here since he is a well-known critique of Bajrang Dal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown lady1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with your changes is that they do not follow our policies and guidelines. Please read WP:NOR, WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS. The content you cite to the Times of India is a violation of copyright. The rest of the content isn't supported by the sources you cite, and facthunt.in does not meet our standards for reliability. Incidentally, the findings of a judicial commission do not either. Please don't reinstate the content you added. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orlando Bosch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sweetwater, Florida ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Orlando_Bosch check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Orlando_Bosch?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orlando Bosch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alberto Hernández ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Orlando_Bosch check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Orlando_Bosch?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing
Hi Vanamonde. I have replied to your posts on ur editing here. Please reply appropriately if you have anything to say. --Hari147 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for El Grito de Sunset Park
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

GA reviews by socks
Hi Vanamonde. Hope the pandemic is treating you well :) A question for you. While it is kosher to generally revert material added by a sock, what is the custom/policy on articles promoted to GA status by confirmed socks? --regentspark (comment) 19:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't complain, really, being stuck at home is no fun but I'm better off than most...I wish I had a better answer to that. I think that it's been a somewhat gray area, historically, likely because it's not a common issue. The only example I can think of is that of, who was a prolific GA reviewer, and was later blocked as a sock. In that instance, all of the articles they reviewed were not delisted, and I seem to recall (I may be wrong; I can't find the discussion) that while this was suggested, there wasn't consensus for it. It's possible we were somewhat lenient in that case because Cirt (the master) was a competent and productive editor who decided to engage in sockpuppetry to evade a justified TBAN. If it were up to me, I'd handle it on a case-by-case basis; there may be reviews there's no reason to nullify; there may be obviously bad reviews (which can be dealt with by a single user via an individual reassessment) and they may be some reviews that are acceptable but which are probably revisited anyway because the article is contentious, etc. Is there a specific instance where this came up? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Baji Rao I. I'm not up on what qualifies as a GA but the review and the article are both, imo, of poor quality. The reviewer turned out to be a sock. Could you take a look? FYI, since I posted this, has un-GA-ed another article reviewed by the same editor. --regentspark (comment) 01:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on a cursory look, it fails Criterion 1a, and given the subject matter, I'd be very surprised if it passes 2a, 2c, and 4. I wouldn't fail it based on grammar and prose alone, as these are fixable issues, but it's probably sufficient grounds to initiate a GAR. I can look into it, but I'll need a few days...working from home does not seem to have given me any more time to spare, unfortunately. Quite the contrary. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At least in the case of Baji Rao I, there was a Grade A review: Talk:Baji Rao I/GA1.


 * But, as far as I could tell, there was no review for the article on the Barelvi to support the change to GA. Talk:Barelvi/GA1 and Talk:Barelvi/GA2 are red links. I noticed the change in rating at the time it was done, but given the then ongoing sockpuppet investigation, it seemed best to allow him/her to accumulate evidence against him/herself. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The review was acceptable, I grant, but I would not have passed the article as it stands. It overuses quotes, especially from dated sources, a considerable number of grammatical errors, and the first spot-check on sources I performed found a problem (footnote three does not support the entirety of the paragraph about the portuguese). Again, these are fixable issues, but someone needs to want to fix them. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * When you say the "review was acceptable" - do you mean Talk:Baji Rao I/GA1? -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one I'm referring to. Apologies for the ambiguity. Barelvi does not seem to have been reviewed, as you said. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)