Jump to content

User talk:Amakuru/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25
Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

Move of Grenoble Alps University to Université Grenoble Alpes

Hello Amakuru, I was looking over the move discussion for Grenoble Alps University to Université Grenoble Alpes, and I would like to suggest reopening the discussion.

It seems that some relevant evidence was not taken into account, which is that both Reuters [1] and The Times [2] refer to the university as "Grenoble Alpes University". This puts into question what seems to be the basis for the move, which is that there is no established English usage.

Also, even if we were to agree that there is no established English usage, I'd query the manner in which Wikipedia policy on using English in article titles was applied here. The policy describes an example involving valley names: For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. because Rheintal and Moseltal are translated Rhine Valley and Moselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. By analogy, I suggest we should use the English "University" rather than the French "Université", even for a university that is little-known in the English-speaking world.

Please keep in mind that "University" is the overwhelming usage in the titles of English-language Wikipedia articles about universities in countries that use other languages. For example, the German university article titles use "University" rather than "Universität", and the Spanish university article titles use "University" rather than "Universidad", etc. This, even though a Google search on most of those university names would overwhelmingly return the domestic-language versions.

These points, about how to apply the "use English" policy, and the established practice for university article titles on Wikipedia, were not thoroughly addressed in the move discussion.

Thank you kindly for your consideration of this issue. MyPOV (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Morning @MyPOV: and thanks for your message. The move discussion you mention is more than two years old, so it would not make sense to re-open the original discussion at this stage. However, if you have new information to bring to the discussion, it would be fine to open a new discussion to propose moving the article back to its previous title. Just follow the instructions at WP:RM to kick that off. It would usually be polite to ping all previous participants in the discussion as well, so that they have a chance to evaluate the new evidence too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply @Amakuru:. I will do as you suggest! Kind regards, MyPOV (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The South Korean articles like US articles

I need you help, why the almost all South Korean article on Wikipedia use American date Format (MDY Format) like US figures rather than British date format (DMY Format) ? 111.94.241.4 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@111.94.241.4: where an article has particular ties to either the US or the UK, we would use the date format relevant to that country. However, articles regarding South Korea are not tied particularly to any English-speaking country, so we do not have an automatic preference on which format to use for them. That being the case, the guideline at MOS:DATEVAR applies - namely, that we should stick with the format used in the first non-stub version of the article. I'm guessing that as the US has a higher number of editors than the UK, and probably a higher population of Koreans too, the US format has tended to be used more often than the UK. Unless someone has actually gone through and changed them without good reason, we should just stick with the status quo. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the South Korean article to British date format (DMY Format), but returned again to American date format (MDY Format), all my efforts were in vain 111.94.241.4 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

i feel it's very strange only Asian continent like South Korea and Japan articles use American date format (MDY Format) rather than British date format (DMY Format) make the feel angry ? 111.94.241.4 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I know the Guessing the User to created Article of South Korean Figures likes American date format (MDY Format) not British date format (DMY Format) is Kenny htv and Alexanderlee they are deliberated the created article to famous of the world and be approved like US ? 111.94.241.18 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Amakuru, I very need your answer, I know the suspect first page of South Korean articles looked like US figures is Emperorbma deliberated created or revised BoA and almost all page on Wikipedia use American date format (MDY Format) created about South Korea followed by Kenny htv, Alexanderlee and Abdotorg 111.94.202.92 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@111.94.202.92: I don't understand why you persist on going to multiple editors with the same question every once in a while, despite having been answered multiple times by multiple editors. The first revision of BoA used DMY, yes, however it also contained little-to-no information. The first non-stub revision used MDY, and the article has been developed and maintained using MDY for over fifteen years. If an article has used one format, stick to using that format and do not change without discussion on the article talk page. Which date format is used when the article depends on whichever format the creator used, majority of the time there is no reason to change this. Alex (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And why the Chinese articles use DMY not MDY example G.E.M. ? 111.94.202.92 (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@111.94.202.92: Because that is how it was created, and maintained. Alex (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

prep 2 > queue 2

Whoops, I didn't realize until after I'd moved to queue that you were working on it! Sorry! Did I screw anything up for you? I was going to start doing the admin checks, then saw you'd edited heavily this morning. --valereee (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee: no, that's fine I was actually done with it anyway. I had been doing checks this morning with a view to uploading it to the queue myself, and had reached the end. Not sure if there's a process for indicating to others that you're actively looking at the checks?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, do you know, I think a question I had about that was the original beginning of the 'kerfuffle' as you called it. :) I was wondering if there was some way to indicate to each other, 'hey, I've checked this one, you don't need to!' so that we didn't replicate one another's work and so others would know that even though I'd moved a prep to queue, I hadn't checked it and wasn't sure I'd have time to. I mean, obviously I can see that you've edited many of these hooks, and that you've also recently edited many of the articles, and you asked a question at dyk talk about a hook you moved out of the set, but for all I know you got called away halfway through or had remaining concerns, since you didn't finalize it with the actual move. I guess it's the actual move that tells other admins, "I'll do/I've done this one." Okay, so good to know you'd finished it, I'll not bother with it, yay! Just got potentially an hour or two of my day back. :D --valereee (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Clarification

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Bonadea_is_a_God_of_roman_religion._Religious_user_names_are_prohibited_in_all_wikis_including_wikipedia.So_Bonadea_user_page_was_deleted.Bonadea_name_was_included_in_Black_list_%22Bonadea%E2%80%9D_user_name_has_been_banned_from_editing_in_all_wikis_.&action=history


Please explain Reason for following blocks ?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/MyBuddha

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sword_of_Allah

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

Really religious usernames are not accepted? Rumbacrush (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthem Christmas tree

Hi, thanks for your tweaks on the hook, but if there were 25,000 ornaments on this tree, the hook should say so. Also, it is incorrect to say "this year" when the news about 5,000 ornaments was published in 2018. I'd like MB to work with us on a revised hook before this goes live. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: alright. Fine by me. Shall we leave it in the set for now, since it's a special occasion hook?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. Hope to get this cleared up within a day. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Yoninah:, incidentally the 5,000 ornaments this year is citable - e.g. [3]... I found that one in my searches and thought the source for the figures was already this year. I agree that there may be a much better way to formulate it though, let me know as and when you want me to update it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe there were 25,000 ornaments on the tree in 2012 despite the source because it was reported in the years before and after - 5,000, at least 5,000, around 6000, etc. That report probably meant 5,000 ornaments and 20,000 lights; it doesn't make sense that the tree had 5x the number of decorations one year. The hook is not about a specific year's tree, it is about the reoccuring installation that always has many thousands of ornaments. MB 20:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, what do you think of this:

  • @MB: if you think it was a typo, then your alt is okay with me. But do you want to say "lights" instead of "bows"? Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    @MB: @Yoninah: my main doubt about the wording is that it seems to imply that there is only one tree, rather than a series of separate trees. The hook above kind of works OK in the absence of the photo, because you can interpret it as just referring to this year's incarnation of the tree, which is indeed the tallest in Arizona right now, and is decorated with the ornaments and bows as specified. But with the photo of a 2014 tree, it gets a bit more confused. It's not really true to say that the 2014 tree "is decorated with at least 5,000 ornaments and bows", because that tree is long-gone and has presumably been disposed of by now, or replanted. Something along the lines of:
  • ALT3 ... that the Anthem Christmas tree (pictured), Arizona's tallest every year, is decorated with at least 5,000 ornaments and bows?
    would be a better fit for me. Not perfect and wording could be improved, but at least it removes the confusion I mention above. Or happy to consider alternatives involving the current bold link. Unless you think I'm mistaken...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I really don't see the confusion since a Christmas tree, by the common definition at least, is something decorated each year at Christmas. The Anthem Christmas tree can be figuratively "the series of trees" and simultaneously the individual trees each year, just like the the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is "one thing" but literally a different tree each year - a live cut Chistmas tree is understood to be used only one season and replaced. I think the first hook above flows more naturally. And Yoninah, I don't think lights is correct - the source referenced above uses "5,000 ornaments and bows", so we can't go wrong using that exact wording. 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, if Yoninah is happy with it then I won't object. At least the reader will get to the correct information when they click through to the article anyway. I've set it to the version you suggest above for now. If any other suggestions or objections are raised, we can always edit it again later. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, I understand your confusion, and agree that your hook solves the issue. I'm just concerned that the same editor who added repetitive wording to the original hook to clarify what "tallest" refers to will come by and tweak your hook too. That's why I had piped the whole bolded subject to the tallest Christmas tree in Arizona, which in fact is pretty eye-catching. Personally I think the hook is clear about what it's talking about as being tallest, but it has to be crystal clear so the people at ERRORS won't intervene. Pinging @MB: Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: many thanks, and a very merry Christmas to you too. That's a great picture for the Wiki-Card, and interesting to read about it in DYK today.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Amakuru

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Amakuru, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Hello Amakuru: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas
Sending you best wishes. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Nosebagbear: @DBigXray: @Whispyhistory: @TheSandDoctor: many thanks for all the above greetings, and wishing you all a very merry Christmas and New Year as well. Looking forward to building the encyclopaedia together in 2020 and beyond!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers to the spirit of collaboration and the good times ahead. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 23:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CAA itnc

Hi, I think there are sufficient comments to post it one way or the other. Are the admins unable to decide which way to post it?--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 02:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

RD

Happy 2020!

Seeing you active: I left already several emergency calls about recent deaths no longer being recent. Could you perhaps move some, or at least mark ready. I think of Peter Schreier, but see many others waiting as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, there and many times before! Today, it's Harry Kupfer. Looking forward to 2020 with your presence! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Today it was a Holocaust survivor, an actor (not yet done), and a soprano (done by BabbaQ). Yesterday, It was Nello Santi. I expanded all day, then - tired - made a mistake in the infobox ... - so it's still not posted, only because I was tired. Long obituary in the New York Times, and readers possibly waiting ... - enough, turning to food and then the actor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: sorry it took so long to get them up there. I looked at them last night, but forgot to circle back to it this morning. And just to let you know that your hard work in fixing up the issues and getting so many good quality articles up at DYK and ITN is much appreciated. We are very grateful to have you.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you ;) - three deaths one day is a horrible record so far, thank goodness BabbaQ dealt with the soprano. (I wonder what had happened to her DYK in 2016, which is not in the archive. Probably pulled, and better no investigation.) I saw Santi in action! Good video on YouTube of Don Pasquale! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Hello Amakuru:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Hi I need your help to remove redirect link from this page Drift.com. Someone redirected it to its founder David Cancel page. Kindly check it and help me to fix the issues. Anchan Balti --WikiMaster 20:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

binomial nomenclature

Hello, I am Arabic, why English Wikipedia uses Latin names in articles on animals such as helicoprion, Thylacoleo, Megalania, Thank you 88محمد88المياحي88 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to the 2020 WikiCup

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).--Hanberke (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

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: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your closure of the RM on "Capital, Volume I", "Capital, Volume II" and "Capital, Volume III"

Why did you close the discussion and move the articles? The disussion had not reached a consensus, and the arguments that I had made for keeping the current names had not been addressed. ThessalonianR (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThessalonianR: the discussion had been open for more than a month, and other than you no other participant opposed the move (following Dekimasu's striking of their earlier oppose). Your opposition was noted, but others in the discussion responded to it, and overall consensus was that the move should go ahead. Since you've queried the close, I've added some extra commentary explaining the close, which I hope will make some sense for you. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I've read the comments you made on the talk page. You say that "the point about the mixed languages was answered by SMcC", but if you read the discussion you will see that the only one who made such a point was SMcCandlish himself and that he did not respond to the actual points that I made. You also claim that consensus was reached on the common name. It is of course the case that more people claimed that Das Kapital is the common name and that I was "outvoted", but no evidence for the claim was presented and unsubstantiated claims surely carry much less weight. I presented several pieces of evidence in both this discussion and the previous one at Talk:Das Kapital#Requested move 22 November 2019 showing that Capital is the common name. WP:RMCI states that "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." I contend that you have not done this. ThessalonianR (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@ThessalonianR: yes, you're right that Requested Move discusssions are not straight votes, and each point is examined through the light of policy. But that doesn't mean the discussions aren't votes at all. There were seven comments in support of the move, which when added to the nomination makes eight in favour and most of them very experienced editors. And when looking at what they said through the lens of community consensus in general, the consistency argument, which is one of the five core WP:CRITERIA of the page naming policy, is sufficient on its own to make those eight support votes valid. I understand that you're disappointed with the outcome, I've been in that position myself before where the result didn't match the points I'd made, but ultimately I don't think anyone would have closed this discussion differently and I recommend that you accept the outcome and move on. Regards  — Amakuru (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If consistency was the deciding issue for you, then I understand your decision. Now all of the articles consistently use the less common name. Outcome accepted, but I may at some point propose a move for all four articles given that the consistency argument would no longer play any role. ThessalonianR (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@ThessalonianR: yes, that's certainly an option. I recommend waiting a while before opening this topic again, but if you come back in a few months with a well-presented and strongly-evidenced proposal for all four articles I imagine it would be fine to do that. I note that the original closure at Talk:Das Kapital was actually closed as "No Consensus" by Cwmhiraeth, which is quite interesting given the numerical tally in opposition there. But per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, "no consensus" is not as strong a result as "consensus not to move" which means a fresh RM is more acceptable. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hazeltine 2000

Amakuru, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen the ping from this nomination, where Evrik is asking you for your opinion of the two newly proposed hooks based on your prior comments in superseding the tick with a non-approval icon. Please stop by when you get the chance; the review seems to be waiting on your response. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The final step in pulling a hook at DYK

Amakuru, thank you so much for all the prep to queue promotions you've been doing at DYK, and the checking that goes with it. I noticed that you pulled the JoAnne Graf hook today, but didn't quite complete the process, so I took care of the final step for you.

After you've reopened the nomination, the thing you need to do next is to retransclude the nomination template on the Nominations page. The date that should be used (in this case, I used January 5 for Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnne Graf) is the date the article was created, its 5× expansion was begun, or it was listed as a Good Article, based on UTC date/time. (If the article was moved from user or draft space to main space, it's the date of that move that serves as "creation" date.) Occasionally, there won't be a section for that exact date on the Nominations page, so you'll need to add a date header just above the nomination you're transcluding.

Sometimes, if not retranscluded, the reopened nominations get forgotten about, since they aren't visible to people who didn't already know about them, including potential new reviewers. I've seen nominations neglected for weeks or months, because no one could see that they weren't getting any attention.

Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: oh, that's strange - I thought there had been an update to the DYK bot to take care of that automatically. Perhaps it is not working correctly. Thanks, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
No, no bot for this final step, I'm afraid. It's only ever been a manual task, like when transcluding the initial nomination on the Nominations page. The bot will delete promoted or rejected nominations from the Nominations and Approved pages, and move approved nominations from the Nominations page to the Approved one, but that's it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Nothing's getting me annoyed here any longer but we never ever ever have two-sentence blurbs at ITN! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: ha yes, that thought did occur to me as well when I saw it, but I decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Let me have a look if it can be rewritten. Welcome back, BTW, to your new life without bizarre and contradictory editing restrictions!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Cheers! FWIW the speculation shouldn't really be there at all, even in its "denial" form, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1

Hi, are you clearing Prep 1 since promoting to Queue 1? Yoninah (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I hadn't noticed this query here, so I cleared Prep 1 and upped the next prep to 2 a little while ago. Amakuru, I hope that doesn't mess things up for your process, but it's generally not a good idea to have the same set in two places at once (in this case Prep 1 and Queue 1) for very long; people get confused by it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: oh, no that's fine. I just forgot to do it. Apologies and thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Because why not?

Have a cheeseburger Colonel sanders123 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Colonel sanders123: oh, that looks very tasty. Thanks very much! Wishing you a very happy Tuesday...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tony Garnett

On 14 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Garnett, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Causeway Street Elevated

Please see my comments at Talk:Causeway_Street_Elevated#Requested_move_25_December_2019. --В²C ☎

WRIQ/WIQR Moves

Kudos on the moves on these articles. I was about to put in a request with a resident radio station article updater, Mlaffs, when I saw you had already made the changes. Well done! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:39 on January 16, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: no probs, glad to help. They were requested at WP:RM/TR and I picked them up... hopefully all done correctly, as I have no clue about these radio stations myself  — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me. :) Radio is my area too, but I leave the moving to Mlaffs. :) Nice work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:14 on January 16, 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

This was rude, arrogant, complacent and tantamount to vandalism as you restored errors to the article. Please consider this as a warning. Please do not repeat this behaviour. Thanks. The Huhsz (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Huhsz: there's no need to be so aggressive. You made numerous cosmetic wording changes to an article which had been vetted and approved at an FAC review, which it is acceptable for me to challenge, particularly when done on the day of its appearance on the main page. What you consider improvements to the article aren't necessarily what everyone else does, and I didn't consider your changes to be an improvement. For example, your removal of "the village of...", which you also requested at WP:ERRORS, removes information which I consider useful for understanding the location. If you have specific things that you'd like to discuss and amend, which aren't obvious errors, then please do so at the talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
No, sorry. I've re-reviewed your edit. If you think that was "cosmetic wording changes", you merely tell me that you know nothing about prose quality, and nothing about the Manual of Style, adherence to which is a requirement of Featured articles. Perhaps you didn't know that either. That was unequivocally a bad and a harmful edit. I'll be keeping an eye on your edits from now on and if I see you do anything else in this line, I assure you you won't enjoy the consequences. Leave things you don't understand alone, please. If you have sufficient ability to read and understand it, you may find the essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" to be instructive. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian government resigns on ITNC

Hi, looks like every admin other than you had commented there. It is ready. Can you see if you can post it. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for help on Glenworth Valley/Popran Creek

Hi Amakura,

adlsm here from the Glenworth Valley/ Popran Creek site that you were on last night for me. Need your help on this one as I am wanting to change the title from Glenworth Valley to Popran Creek as I requested. There are compelling reasons for this change and would appreciate your help on this. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad lsm (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Ad lsm:, and thanks for your message. The instructions for how to request a move are at the page WP:RM. If you do what it says there, the proposal will be listed with your reasons for the move. Then it will be assessed after seven days, based on feedback in the discussion. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion for Private Life (disambiguation)

Hi Amakuru,

I see you have completed the move for the above dab page to Private Life, but it looks like the move discussion didn't survive. It was on the source page of the move, which could, in itself, be the problem, but wondering if you can somehow restore the revisions for Talk:Private Life (disambiguation) at Talk:Private Life?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Actually the discussion is still around, it's just at the new location for the song page, Talk:Private Life (song). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, Ah, okay, gotcha. So, this was dab page was affected indirectly. Thanks for clarifying! Doug Mehus T·C 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: yes, it was. It was set up as a multi-move request, which means two page moves (or it could be more than two) are discussed in the same conversation. When doing that, the nominator sets up the discussion on one or other of the pages, often arbitrarily. Then there's a bot which picks up on the RM, and leaves a message on the other affected pages, including the proposed destination pages if there's already something there. So in this case, the bot left a note on the talk of the disambiguation page (which was titled Private Life (disambiguation) at the time) with a link pointing to the conversation. In this case the original conversation was at "Talk:Private Life", which is the page now at Talk:Private Life (song). Hence the link left by the bot ended up broken after the moves went ahead. But during the RM itself that link pointed to the correct place. I've now left a note at the talk page in case anyone is confused by that. Thanks and hope that makes some sense!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, Yep, and I knew most of that, but that's a great, thorough explanation you can point other editors to if they have the same question. The note on the dab page talk page was a good idea, too. Doug Mehus T·C 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

POTD

Regarding your recent comment at WP:ERRORS: Considering that the creation of POTD templates is normally automated by a bot, I understand that manually substing the unprotected versions through {{POTD row}} may not be a familiar process. The easiest way to go about this, as far as I've noticed, is to click the "create protected version" link on the archive page and follow the given instructions to replace the first line with something else, etc. Also, you're right that the threshold for the image size to switch to the vertical layout has been amended slightly – I subtly made the alteration such that we can use a round number (i.e. 400) to maximise the image size for the standard horizontal layout, which seems like a more natural alternative to me. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: ah OK that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the heads up. It was a bit silly having to constantly put 399 just to keep it in the correct layout. Re the subst, I think I did once try it a year or two ago, but it seemed like what it produced was nothing like the normal template that the bot outputs. I might have done it wrong though. I'll try it again if and when this sort of thing comes up in future. Cheers, and wishing you a good weekend.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sca: he he, no worries!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Soufrière Hills Volcano RM closure

When you closed the discussion as "moved" and moved the article, looks like the talkpage didn't get moved along. Talk:Soufrière Hills is still a redirect to the ...Volcano name rather than being reversed. DMacks (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: oh yes, my bad, apologies for that. It happens when the destination page has history and can't be deleted automatically - usually I spot this at the time. I've done it now, thanks for the heads up!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick-fix! The interface for moving is always..."fun". DMacks (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sunrise, Inverness Copse

Hello! Your submission of Sunrise, Inverness Copse 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! Zeete (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Multi image POTD

BTW, I received a message back from the Krinkle at Commons. We should be good from now on. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: oh great thanks for updating me. We'll see if it works when the time comes then. Cheers, and have a good weekend  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

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 Wikipedia: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. [4]

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


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Thanks for participating! I wasn't sure about contacting everybody from the Africa and Women contests, I contacted a few and then thought just leave a notice at the top and hope it's still on watchlists! I think I'll ask Ser Amantio to send out notices to a range of Wikiprojects and ask Casliber to put up a central notice as it gets nearer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: yes, that makes sense. It's always a fine line, knowing how many talk pages to spam with news of things like this! Thanks for organising this destubathon, hopefully I'll be able to join in the useful work and have some fun along the way...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Sunrise, Inverness Copse

On 3 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sunrise, Inverness Copse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sunrise, Inverness Copse, a World War I watercolour by Paul Nash, was one of what he described as "fifty drawings of muddy places on the Front"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sunrise, Inverness Copse. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sunrise, Inverness Copse), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick update on this. The only source that is holding me back from FAC now is this one used to cite a couple of facts and figures I can't find anywhere else. WP:SPS says self-published works are okay if written by an expert who has already had stuff published elsewhere, but actual news sources for the Marshlink Action Group are relatively thin on the ground. Also, the page says "really could do with an update". So while the source is probably okay for GA, as we ought to be able to trust its factual accuracy, I don't think it clears the "high-quality" part of FA criteria 1c. I'm carrying on looking at book sources, but we really are getting into diminishing returns, with no new ground being uncovered. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: thanks for the update, and great that you've put more work into the article. I'll try to give it a look over when I get a chance. I'd have thought that ref is fine if all it's doing is verifying the founding date of the Marshlink Action Group on their own website. Even at FAC, a degree of common-sense has to prevail! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The MLAG source is citing the following : electrification past Ore was abandoned because of WWII, line speed was reduced from 85 to 60mph in 1979 following single tracking, as of 27 April 1986 it's the only non-electrified line in the South East (what about East Grinstead - Uckfield?) class 205 and 207s were introduced in 1962 and 171s in 2003. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/V. S. Lelchuk

Amakuru, there was a call for you to return to your review and check the latest ALT hook. If you could stop by here soon, that would be great. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Daniel arap Moi

On 5 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Daniel arap Moi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind assessing the consensus for a merger discussion, Amakuru?

@Amakuru:

Since you have a lot of experience with requested page moves...would you mind assessing the consensus for a merger discussion, Amakuru?

It's been open for approximately 10-11 calendar days, and with support based on policy, logic, and common sense from three editors, you can discount the trite arguments from the IP editor and the non-autoconfirmed registered editor, particularly when you take into account my, and the others', strong counter-arguments to each.

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 08:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I still think it is quite poor form to close a merge proposal after less that 24 hours (what, did you mention only 12 hours ?) as not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is necessarily on line at the same time, if nothing else because some people live on a globe with a different time zone to yours and are not editing when you are. 12 hours is too early, even though there are similar views from the initial comments. Please keep this in mind for future actions. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Dekimasu#corona thingy

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dekimasu#corona thingy. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DS alert refresh: AP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area. Even admins have to suffer this indignity, apparently. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for [[ Member state of the European Union ]]

An article that you have been involved with ( Member state of the European Union ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Member states of the European Union ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Member state of the European Union#Splitting proposal . Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock my English Wikipedia user account Alex Neman

My English Wikipedia account Alex Neman have been blocked since 20 January 2020 due to edit warring on Suzuki Carry article, but extended to indefinitely since 23 January 2020 due to block evade using IP addresses. As an editor using 182.30.204.161 always or usually revert my edits due to my sockpuppetry, an editor using that IP address recommends that you as the admin must be appeal the block of my account. Please unblock my account Alex Neman and talk to my user talkpage, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex Neman/Archive#Comments by other users 9. Thank you. 114.142.169.18 (talk) 06.07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: 114.142.169.18 has sockpuppeted many IPs and currently going as 43.252.74.193. 182.30.204.161 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus move assistance request

I've sent out a request for assistance on this matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- The Anome (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Vine Band

Hi not urgent but there’s an expired PROD at The Vine Band which seems to have been overlooked. If you have the time and inclination could you carry out the delete please? Many thanks Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Great thank you. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru/Archive_19&oldid=1145982624"