User talk:Vanamonde93
This is Vanamonde93's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
[edit]The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
- Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
- Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
- Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.
Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
[edit]Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
[edit]Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 November 2024
[edit]ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Human Rights Revival
[edit]Hi! I recently posted at WikiProject Human rights about the lack of activity on the project and its being labeled as "semi-active". I noticed that you are a member of the project, and would like to get your input if possible. See my post on the Talk page, and if you have insight into possibly reviving the project or have any thoughts about it, feel free to comment. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Goodness, I had entirely forgotten I had signed up as a member. I don't have very much to say here, I'm afraid: it's still something of a mystery to me what keeps some projects active and makes others go quiet, though of course it comes down to editor time at the end of the day. My content work is has been tangentially related at best. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened
[edit]You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).
Interface administrator changes
- Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
- Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
- Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
- The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
- An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
Mentoring for FAC
[edit]Hi, I'm contacting you because I noticed your username is listed at WP:FAM and I am interested in nominating a FAC but have never done so in the past. I'm contacting several people listed as FA mentors so if you are busy that is okay. The article is Neurocysticercosis, a parasitic brain disease. I have started a peer review for the article which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will do my best to stop by, as it's an interesting topic, and close enough to literature I've read that I hope to be able to offer intelligent feedback. We have some very capable editors who work on medical topics, though; have you tried asking one of them too? @Spicy, Ajpolino, and SandyGeorgia: come to mind. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have not asked Spicy but have asked the others. Thank you in advance I appreciate all the feedback I can get. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted page.
[edit]Some time back you deleted the "Leadership Network" page, for fully sound reasons, I'm sure. For academic reasons, I'd like to see what appeared earlier for that, and have gone to the internet archive, but I am wondering it there is a way through Wikipedia to access that deleted page in its final form. Does it exist archived internally somewhere, at WP? We are doing research on the subject of the so-called "New Apostolic Reformation," and apparently the founding influence of that movement, C. Peter Wagner, regularly published through the Leadership Network. A specific, further reason to ask is that the internet archive entry for this page predates the deletion by two years, and so the only vestige of the article, otherwise, fails to reflect any changes to the article over the period of 2016-08-18 (it's last archive) and 2019-02-09 (it's approximate deletion date, see https://web.archive.org/web/20190209192914/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Network). Cheers, and thank you for any effort in reply. [a former logging editor and professor]. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the page was deleted for copyright reasons, and so I cannot give you a copy of the deleted version. A large portion of it was copied from the organization's own website, however, and the content ought to be available there or at the archived version of that page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, received. I did/do not understand that providing evidentiary historic, archival material (as does the appended 2016 Internet Archive link, see following) was viewed according to any applicable legal doctrine, as violating copyright, per se. That is, we here are not of the understanding that maintaining and allowing access to earlier evidence of a copyright violation—in this case, access for research reasons—itself constituted a further violation of copyright. (If that were true, Archive.org would be in serial violation, see the earlier, accessible, but less accurate 2016 version of the page, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160818063603/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Network . Cheers, and thank you for any effort in reply. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not a legal professional, and so I'm not going to discuss the Internet Archive's model. But the page in question was deleted for violating Wikipedia's copyright policy, and as such it does not meet the criteria under which I can provide a non-administrator with a copy. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, received. I did/do not understand that providing evidentiary historic, archival material (as does the appended 2016 Internet Archive link, see following) was viewed according to any applicable legal doctrine, as violating copyright, per se. That is, we here are not of the understanding that maintaining and allowing access to earlier evidence of a copyright violation—in this case, access for research reasons—itself constituted a further violation of copyright. (If that were true, Archive.org would be in serial violation, see the earlier, accessible, but less accurate 2016 version of the page, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160818063603/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Network . Cheers, and thank you for any effort in reply. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter
[edit]Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist. Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC).
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
[edit]You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA
. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
AE - word count request
[edit]I'm aware that the AE between myself and Raladic is already overlong, and as with the previous one expanding in several directions at once, and Barkeep has already pointed at the word count. I have removed the replies from my complaint for length.
Can I please request 250 additional words to specifically deal with:
but the insertion of content that misrepresents a source, or is simply unsourced, is clear-cut sanctionable misconduct
As well as specific evidence of the number of times Raladic has engaged in BRR vs the number of times I have, as opposed to the bidirectional claim of edit warring currently being made against me on that basis. If there is to be a ruling of "fault on both sides" I would like the opportunity to demonstrate that this is heavily biased in one direction. Void if removed (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but in fairness I think Raladic would also need an extension. I will leave a note at AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Word count at AE
[edit]Hey there, I would like to bring my word count back under where it should be but I don't think I can unless I cut those long quotes I posted for you. As it was a direct response to your question I wanted to know if you need those quotes on the record or can I cut them back to raw diffs at this point? Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind - I just saw Barkeep's reply. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I think you could safely collapse those quotes, since the discussion has largely moved to other issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 December 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5
- Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited
- Op-ed: On the backrooms
- In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial
- Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody
Three different users asked for this to be relisted, including one delete !voter - why did you clearly ignore us? SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't ignore you. I noted that I would give you a userspace/draftspace copy, allowing you to work on the article and recreate it at your leisure. If you find sources, this gives you the same outcome, without spending more community time; if you don't find sources, likewise. What is the problem, exactly? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is terribly fair ... to leave this open without a clear indication as to why
– me, SportingFlyer and one of the delete voters (the others probably would have as well if they had been notified – e.g. GiantSnowman voted delete but said he was confident sources existed) agreed as to why it was fair: to allow us another week to search for sources (plus, we need the details that were in the article, as well as the link to the Arabic Wikipedia article, to be able to appropriately search for sources in the first place). What's so bad with relisting? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- Leaving an AfD open is a request for further community input, and therefore consumes community time. That should be reserved for discussions that need input; this one clearly cannot use input right now, because you haven't presented any additional sources. As such, leaving it open isn't a good use of time. Conversely, you are in no way prevented from searching for sources and recreating the article if they are found. Again, what is the problem here? What do you wish to do that you cannot do? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't a way I can appropriately search for sources without knowing both the details from the article and having the link to the Arabic Wikipedia article on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...which you could have addressed by asking for a draftspace copy, which I had promised to provide. Here it is. And here is the page on ar.wiki. Have at it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm off to DRV. This close was astonishing. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...which you could have addressed by asking for a draftspace copy, which I had promised to provide. Here it is. And here is the page on ar.wiki. Have at it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't a way I can appropriately search for sources without knowing both the details from the article and having the link to the Arabic Wikipedia article on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Leaving an AfD open is a request for further community input, and therefore consumes community time. That should be reserved for discussions that need input; this one clearly cannot use input right now, because you haven't presented any additional sources. As such, leaving it open isn't a good use of time. Conversely, you are in no way prevented from searching for sources and recreating the article if they are found. Again, what is the problem here? What do you wish to do that you cannot do? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 December 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5
- Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited
- Op-ed: On the backrooms
- In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial
- Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody
Logged warning
[edit]I see that you have closed the AE case on Raladic with a logged warning, but there is no note of the warning on her Talk page. I know that she has retired, but people sometimes come back after retiring. Shouldn’t the warning appear on her Talk page? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think she may be safely assumed to have seen it, and the AELOG entry is what is formally required. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Query regarding treatment of sources
[edit]In your recent comment at AE, you say ‘A good many arguments here amount to discounting sources based on POV rather than reliability. There is precedent for doing so, but that requires a wider discussion, outside the scope of AE.
’. Please direct me to the precedent. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:GMORFC is the obvious instance where the community decided as a whole that one POV is "correct" with respect to how we discuss GMOs, and this has subsequently shaped our evaluation of sources in this area. There are other instances: I recall a fairly wide discussion about race and intelligence, but I'm struggling to find it as the interaction timeline tool is down for me. Other examples where the community has taken a specific position include climate change and the (non)scientific nature of some alternative medicine systems. Please note that I'm not saying that we have gone beyond what our content policies say; just that in a very contentious area, we have had wider discussions on the wording of some topics such that we are able to avoid rehashing the debate on every single affected page. I'm not certain that this is the right time for such a discussion on transgender health, but systematically discarding sources based on perceived POV alone is untenable without such a discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this clarification. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)