User talk:Amakuru/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Disney Streaming Services/BAMTech

Amakuru: "rv undiscussed changes to lede and infobox. This article is about BAMTech, an entity which still operates - https://www.bamtechmedia.com/. Material about Disney Streaming Services seems quite speculative at the moment, but probably belongs in its own article or with Disney+"

It was undiscussed because it was sourced, which was found during a discussion at Talk:Disney+#Disney Streaming Services and other naming issues. Please actually read the changes to the article that sources this information. "...reports to Michael Paull, president of Disney Streaming Services (formerly referred to as BAMTech Media)." (And confirmed by his LinkedIn page.) Since the Disney Streaming Services was previously (logically) attached to the Disney+ article, having been under that name for a short period such to become a redirect, I had to request a G6. Technical deletions: "Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves." Which was granted by administrator @Anthony Appleyard:. Only for you to wheeled/revert his resulting move. Spshu (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, actual read posts on your talk page like this one. Spshu (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Spshu: yes, I read the above comment but I didn't really think there was anything to say about it. I have made my comments at the move request. And I still haven't seen any evidence against the fact that Bamtech is still operating and there's no real evidence that it has been renamed to "Disney Streaming Services". If such a concept exists at all, it is a parent to both Bamtech and Disney+, and it is also highly speculative as well - it won't launch till next year at the earliest.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because you say these sources do not exist!!!!! And I have FOUR TIMES pointed out that there are sources. To say that "I still haven't seen any evidence against the fact that Bamtech is still operating and there's no real evidence that it has been renamed to 'Disney Streaming Services'." is either an inability to read and comprehend or you are just intentionally playing IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. What in the world do you think that "...Disney Streaming Services (formerly referred to as BAMTech Media)" (quoted above) then means? Currently BAMTech article reads as it is the parent of Disney+ and ESPN+. Employees directly in charge of Disney+ and ESPN+ were original appointed as answering to BAMTech president. Spshu (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Involved actions on Jaggi Vasudev

Hi Amkaru, I appreciate your contributions on Jaggi Vasudev, Since you have already participated in the talk page discussion and RM discussions. May I suggest you not to take actions in your administrative capacity on pages and incidents related to this subject per WP:INVOLVED--DBigXrayᗙ 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I am not involved in the edit conflict to which you allude, I have only participated in Jaggi Vasudev in relation to the rename discussion, which is unrelated to the dispute you had with Raymond3023 and Cpt.a.haddock. I was, however, disappointed to see an experienced editor such as yourself edit warring on the article, and if you had used the talk page to resolve the issue, rather than repeatedly reinstating the contentious material, I wouldn't have had to protect the article. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, as I said in the beginning above, that I appreciate your comments and joining the discussion on the talk page. Although you did not participate in the said reverts, but by participating in the talk page discussion and participating in the !vote on a particular side you are clearly under the definitions of WP:INVOLVED as far as this page Jaggi Vasudev is concerned. If you feel admin actions are needed there, you should request Admin boards RFP etc for the sake of neutrality. Being an admin, you clearly should know about it better.
  • Now regarding my edits and your accusation of edit warring, please note I had made several edits (total 15) first time that counted as a "Bold edits" and not a revert. Raymond as he stated in his edit summary had concern with the allegations about his wife and yet he reverted all 13 edits. The said content on wife, was reliably sourced and mass revert of other 13 edits was clearly uncalled for in my opinion, so I made my first revert. And I immediately started a talk page discussion.
  • Instead of joining the talk page discussion, Raymond made a second blanket revert That only referred to the allegation. It was clearly a misleading edit summary for the type of blanket edit that was done. Raymond then joined the talk page and said that he opposed content related to his wife [1] nothing was said by Raymond about the other 13 edits that he mass reverted. So I removed from my edit, the content related to his wife, that was objected by him and restored my other edits [2], this revert by me clearly wasn't the same as my first revert and yet I was blanket reverted by Raymond for a second time again again without proper edit summary. This was clearly disruptive reverts from Raymond with misleading edit summary, but nevertheless I decided not to make any further edits on any of those contents.
  • So clearly I only made 1 revert (since the second revert did not include the content he questioned in his edit summary and talk page) and the reasons for them I clearly mentioned above.
  • I am not sure if you were already aware of these points I said above, but I felt I should clarify since it was questioned. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Amakuru. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Amakuru. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 20, 2018‎

Thanks, agreed. And FWIW, the FAC nom has put this one up at FAR ... he says he doesn't have the time to update it, but the TFA coords haven't actioned this yet, they're hoping someone will step in. If you're interested in the article, feel free to beat it into shape. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dank yes, I did notice that it became featured ten years ago, and that she has moved from eight to eighteen in that time and loads has changed making the article likely to have deteriorated in that time. (The teen singer thing being one example). I didn't delve too deeply though as it was late last night and presumably you guys had looked at all that! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I think it might have been better to just swap this one out if that were possible,especially given there was nobody actively volunteering to action the FAr. And even then, it's usually far more than just a couple of days work to beat an article into shape. Too late now, but it's not ideal for us to be featuring alleged FA content on the main page if it's actually known to be below par. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
My mistake ... I was doing the December blurbs and I forgot that this one was coming up so fast, I thought we had some time to work on it still. (I mean ... my mistake to ask for help. I don't make the scheduling calls, I just do the blurbs.) Thanks for the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dank: sure, and I wasn't blaming you in any way, I was just making a general observation. If I'd spotted that it was FAR last night, with serious doubts expressed about the quality, then I might have swapped it out myself, at risk of possibly causing some major incident with the schedulers. Some things seem pretty basic though, we shouldn't be showcasing subpar material on the main page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian First Division?

The league is not called Norwegian First Division. It is called 1. divisjon. There is no reason to Anglicize the name, as you can see with other leagues, such as Allsvenskan, Eliteserien and Superettan. If 1. divisjon is to be called Norwegian First Division, then shouldn't leagues like the Major League Soccer change name to "American Premier League", EFL Championship change name to "English First Division" and the Bundesliga change name to "German Premier League"? As you can see, these changes are pointless, inaccurate and unnecessary. So I see no reason why 1. divisjon should be called "Norwegian First Division", and it would be nice if you could revert these changes.

Talkback

Hello, Amakuru. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Molly Morgan.
Message added 03:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leaving this talkback since you didn't respond to SkyGazer's ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Mom (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mom (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Mom (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

SoundCloud rap listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SoundCloud rap. Since you had some involvement with the SoundCloud rap redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Human Rights barnstar

The Human Rights Barnstar
For your work on Rwandan Civil War, a critical background article for the Rwandan genocide Seraphim System (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: thank you very much for your kind award of this barnstar. It is much appreciated! And I hope to keep working on more articles in this crucial area in the future as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrator_BU_Rob13_at_WP:ARCA and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Scholar

When you moved Scholar (disambiguation) to Scholar, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. Your move generated 1,141 WP:DABLINK errors. That is very nearly one-quarter of the current DABLINK errors, see WP:TDD. See Disambig fix list for Scholar for details.

I once made a move which broke over 250 links. I knew what needed doing. It took me something like 6 hours to sort them all out. Narky Blert (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: thanks for the message and it's a good point. Most likely most of those links were incorrectly targeted though, because it's dubious in my mind whether the term scholar, which refers to a class of person, should really redirect to scholarly method... hence why I made the bold move. Anyway, BD2412 has now converted the page into a new article on scholars so your concern is hopefully now resolved, and those links will land readers at a better page as a result. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if a lot of the links in were bad. They often are on those redirects with vast numbers of links. bd2412 has written a useful stub article (that's his second this week, another move had broken almost 2,500 links). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Pulling hooks

Hi Amakuru. Regarding the commentary at ERRORS2 today, if you want to pull hooks that's fine by me, but please be sure to replace them with suitable hooks from prep or we end up with a short set. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: indeed, thanks for the message - I think always do that, for example at [3]. I haven't done anything with Jack Brooksbank yet but perhaps I will later if nobody comes up with a better idea. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Civilization (board game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civilization (board game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilization (board game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru, please can you reopen this AfD? The content is changing but currently doesn't match your closing statement, and I think we need further discussion to reach a consensus. @Tavix, Xezbeth, CapnZapp, and Bkonrad: pinging involved editors. Thanks, Certes (talk)
@Certes: OK, done. We'll Let the matter be hashed out then. I do consider it a bit of a waste of time though, I don't see any way the discussion will be closed any other way. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I also think that WP:INCDAB shows clearly what we should do here, but other editors disagree and the page has changed again today. The discussion is not a waste of time if it avoids an edit war. Certes (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom mace

I don't want to clutter TRMs talk page, but that was funny. Obviously we need some kind of backstop where TRM can only be banned from DYK when there are no more errors. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: the trouble with the backstop, though, is how do we get out of it? There seems to be no mechanism for TRM to unilaterally end his agreement with ArbCom, so it won't wash with the Hard Ramblingeers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Year politics moves

Hey, I noticed that you had done the move from United States presidential election, 2016 to 2016 United States presidential election. Is there a way to ensure that the editnotice templates are also moved, or does that have to be done manually? (Looking at Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 United States presidential election which I just now moved on my own) ~Awilley (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Explain?

[4]

"Notability" wasn't the issue. The problem is bad one-sentence stubs being left in the mainspace by an editor who has been told multiple times to stop. You may disagree with those multiple prior instances, but you can't tell me you're willing to stand up for this "article" the way you left it in the mainspace.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian football

Okay, I've closed my 2nd RM. Can you try to persuade the closer of the original RM on his talk page to revert/relist that one? Otherwise this is going to be much harder to fix weeks or months from now. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (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:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@TheSandDoctor: thanks very much for this message, it is much appreciated. And a very happy new year to yourself - here's to more great Wikipedia work in 2019!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you! Here's to the best in 2019 . --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2019-01-02

Should we bump this a bit later in favour of File:Hester_Jeffrey.jpg? It's the 85th anniversary of her death on that date. Alternatively, we could put her somewhere in February for The United States celebration of Black History Month. I just like to find suitable, relevant dates for people. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: sorry, I was offline on a new year vacation in the mountains for several days so I completely missed this message. We've missed this one now, but if you have a suitable alternative date you'd like to put Hester Jeffrey in, please just let me know. And a very happy new year to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, no worries. It happens. How about first February, for Black History Month (North America)? Though the exact date in there matters little. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. 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 make it 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 · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Amakuru; what's the reason for deleting my page without discussion? Could you at least restore the text (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/De la Marck)? Thanks Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

MRV revert

Please explain, since relists of MRV debates are not unheard of? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: yes, if there haven't been enough voices yet or there's a realistic prospect of new information coming to light. That isn't the case here, it's just stuck in a backlog waiting for closure. Postponing that by seven days won't change anything. We can continue discussing at the talk page anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, guess that's why you get the big bucks. ;>) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: He he, not really. No big bucks that I can see, and I'm not always right... consensus may show that I made a mistake but I'm generally just trying to stick to the easiest and most common sense paths. A very happy new year to you by the way and looking forward to collaborating with you and the others again in 2019 making the Wiki an even better place than it is already!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Ditto! Happiest of New Years to you and yours! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, yet another source

Hi Amakuru. I really hate to do this to you, but today I discovered that Ugandan journalist Justus Muhanguzi Kampe has published a memoir entitled "Eyes of a Journalist", the second half of which covers his experiences reporting on the Rwandan Civil War. A memoir isn't considered as strong as peer-reviewed secondary material, but it might have something interesting (apparently he talks a fair amount about the RPF in it). I could see if I could obtain a copy through my university library? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Well if you can get a copy it would be interesting to see what's inside. It doesn't look like the British Library in London has that one. Looking at the synopsis it seems he interviewed some of the RPF personnel although not the top brass like Kagame or Rwigyema. So probably unlikely it'll have major new revelations but you never know...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I've submitted a request through my library loan system. It may take a week or two, but based off of the worldcat page I'm confident they'll be able to secure a copy for me. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Just got the book today. It appears it might have some useful info. It seems true that he did not get those top level interviews, but he did interview other high ranking RPF officers. He also discusses some the implications of the war on Uganda, such as intense damage in border regions from skirmishes. Apparently Kagame's government paid reparations for this in 2015. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
He also takes a different view on the attack on Ruhengeri, that it might've been organised by Alexis Kanyarengwe, because he had just recently joined the RPF and some of his former anti-Habyarimana colleagues were locked up in the prison. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of image from Dali article

I've reverted your removal of the lady and the unicorn image, as it is clearly relevant to the text that surrounds it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: what do you mean? There is no mention of the image in the text at all, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence that the person in the picture is Dali at all. Certainly there is no citation to that effect. Please could you explain? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The entire first paragraph in that section is entirely about the comparison of Dali to the figure of the lady who tames the unicorn. At no point does the text or the caption claim that the figure in the image is Dali herself. The inclusion of the image illustrates the concept of the lady who tames the unicorn. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: Yes I see that now, although the image has been pushed down quite considerably by other images in my browser, so it isn't at all obvious which paragraph it is supposed to connect to. I do think it's quite confusing to include an image that no source at all has ever connected to this subject. But anyway, it's your decision I guess... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There are lots of images like that in the article, which are not Dali but depict other figures or ideas being discussed; I don't understand why your objection is to this one specifically. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that was just the one I happened to spot because I was looking at it in the context of scheduling a picture of the day for the main page and I wondered what it had to do with Dali. To be honest it looks like the article has a few too many images at the moment, but anyway that's your decision as one of the principal authors. So I'll withdraw my objection and we can move on  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Joselyn Alejandra Niño and WP:Errors

Very poor form to revert a change initiated at ERRORS without going there to justify it. The source says nothing explicit to link that particular cartel with the devotion. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoting DYK Preps to Queue

Amakuru, thanks for being active in promoting DYK Preps to Queue; it's great to have more admins doing this work.

I wanted to be sure that you were aware of a final step in the process: updating the NextPrep page so it reflects the next prep that will be promoted to a queue. There's an "update count" link (to Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep) at the top of the Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep areas section; when you don't do the update, the just-promoted preps, now empty, appear at the top of list of six preps rather than at the bottom. I've just updated it myself so that Prep 5 shows as the next prep after your promotions of preps 3 and 4 to their respective queues. Thanks again for promoting them! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Oh great, thanks for the heads up and sorry for not doing it this time. I'll bear that in mind in future. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

POTD

With regards to this edit here is the errors report. As per the regular instructions I had removed it once it had been actioned. The report made sense to me in that it talks about a collection before discussing the actual collection. Up to you if you want to action the report again. Woody (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Woody: ah OK, usually error reports are left up for a few hours at least because not everyone agrees with a particular change, and sometimes consensus is against it. In this case it's usual with paintings to say the location at the end, but I see the point about the collection so guess its better this way. I should have checked the history before I reverted you. I've reinstated the change. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I've always been one to remove them once complete (though I've been away from the page for a significant period). The header still has those instructions hence I didn't think it would be an issue. Woody (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Tottenham O/outrage

Hi Amakuru, Following yesterday's conversation on ERRORS, I've started a thread on the article name here. I don't intend to comment much (if at all) on the thread, but I'm happy to keep an eye on things - if it's just you commenting, I'll happily back you up for the change. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Thank You!

Greetings!

The Months of African Cinema Global Edit-a-thon was concluded on 30 November 2018, and we've had amazing results. Over 570 articles were created across 8 language-Wikipedias. 7 in-person gatherings of Wikipedians were organized across different parts of the world.

All our winners have been recognized and you can check the complete list here.

For a pilot event, all our expectations were surpassed and we have you to thank for that. Thank you so much for being part of this global event! Thank you for helping to fix African content gaps on Wikipedia! We hope to see more of your participation in future AfroCine events and activities. Please remember to signup on the main WikiProject participants page, in order to get updated with these activities.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: well thanks for the message, although unfortunately I didn't contribute anything to the editathon as I didn't have time in the end. Well done to all involved though, it sounds like a great effort!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5

Hi, why would you post a 231-character hook to replace something that's under the correct limit of 200 characters? Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Urgh I wasn't aware of that rule. TRM said the hook was incomprehensible to a nonspecialist reader and I kind of agree with him. The nom suggested the amended wording so I posted it. If you want me to revert I will. I don't want to upset anyone.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Honestly? I think you should pull it and replace it with something else. Then we'll have more time to work on the wording. Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: OK, I've done that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I moved something else into Prep 1. I'm now reopening the nomination and reposting it for you. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you reopened it already. Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: yes I did! And I think reposting is handled by a bot, isn't it? If not, I'll leave you to handle that... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. I'll repost it. Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Amakuru. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Brother list articles issues

Hey, your recent Big Brother list article moves did not leave a redirect and have broken all incomming links. Also, per WP:NCTV and all articles that follow it, the disambiguation is used right after the series name, which is what it disambiguates, and not at the end of the article. --Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I have moved the incoming redirects to point to the correct titles, but I don't think we need to keep the other titles... they were only moved there today, so are not long-term plausible targets that would need to be kept. Regarding the titles, disambiguators should never go in the middle of titles, they are always added to the end of the title per WP:NCDAB. Bear in mind that the show is not called "Big Brother (UK series 7)", such that we maintain that as an integral unit, the "(UK series 7)" is there simply to disambiguate these titles from those of other series. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The show is called Big Brother (UK TV series) which under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List article would mean List of Big Brother (UK TV series) series 19 housemates, like this example List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 7 housemates (or from a non-Big Brother example List of Mistresses (U.S. TV series) episodes). I can't find where at WP:NCDAB it says to use at the end.--Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: well, the text says "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses". Normally "adding" something means putting it at the end (otherwise it's "inserting"). Also, all the examples given there show disambiguators at the end. I grant you that it's not completely watertight though, and you're right that WP:NCTV does permit such infixed disambiguators. I really think it shouldn't, as disambiguators are not supposed to be considered part of the article title, but as a means of differentiating between two or more topics which are otherwise named the same way. As an example of this, we had an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2017#RfC:_UK_railway_station_disambiguation a couple of years ago about whether it's acceptable to put station name disambiguators in the middle of the title. The decision was that they should not, and we hence moved things like Newport (Shropshire) railway station to the current better title of Newport railway station (Shropshire). I may see about starting an RFC either at NCTV, or even more generally at WP:AT, to nail down once and for all whether this is really the community's view or not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk)
Having a RfC is a good idea. I'm not married to any one style, but I do hate having a guideline not followed and at the same time not changed. --Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Gonnym: Sorry about this my understanding was with list articles that the complete article title went in the middle like List of Big Brother (UK series #) housemates. I apologize for the mess I created and thanks for cleaning it up. Won't happen again. I'll be sure to double check WP:NCDAB and WP:NCTV in the future before moving anymore lists like these. If I make anymore errors please leave a message on my talk page so I know what I have done wrong and can correct myself going forward. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alucard 16: thanks for your message, and there is no need to apologise. From what Gonnyn says above, the current guidance at WP:NCTV is to title them the way you did. I just disagreed because more generally, per sitewide convention, it is odd and unusual to put disambiguators in the middle of titles. This is a classic case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS saying one thing, and apparent convention saying another. So neither of us is right or wrong. I hope to resolve this via a request for comment at WT:AT  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange symbol added in edit

Your edit here added a strange symbol to the beginning of the section heading line. I believe that was inadvertent, but wanted to bring your attention to it to make sure. --В²C ☎ 02:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Tis tandem unicyclists δδ δδ δδ δδ. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: @Born2cycle: yes, tandem unicyclists is correct. Also, it's a secret symbol of my Masonic lodge. (I think it was a silly quirk of my phone keyboard... very annoying. I've reverted it)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Query

What did you mean by "as usual, Stephen, thinks WP:BRD doesn't apply to him." Where else have I caused you concern? Stephen 23:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Stephen: I was referring to this, last September: bold, revert, bold again, which was technically a wheel war since it happened on a protected page. I do think it's important to leave the status quo in place and discuss things rather than reinstating a challenged change, even if you think consensus or policy is clear. That's the way I try to operate and I'd ask you to please do the same in future. If you're right, then that will quickly become clear in a discussion. That said, the comment you mention above was unduly uncivil to you - it was said in the heat of the moment - and I have struck it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sepioteuthis australis

The source says "most commonly", not "commonly", they mean different things. You should revert the hook to what it originally said. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The source says "the most common number of sires within a single egg strand was three". That might mean, for example, that 40% had three sires, 30% had two and 30% had one. Is 40% "common"? It's less than half. Suppose you had sires up to, say, six in a single strand, and their respective percentages were 10, 15, 15, 15, 20 and 25, the 25 being strands with 3 sires. 25 percent is only a quarter of the total number, is that "common"? No, it's only the most common, proportionally speaking. The source uses "most common" for a reason. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I misread this one. I have found other sources which say "three is more common" and not "most common", but it's not worth arguing. It's hardly a hook which is going to get much attention one way or another, so I'd suggest putting it back to the way it was so we don't waste any more time on it. Apologies Amakuru for getting you involved in this one. Still, after nearly 600 DYK errors spotted and fixed in 6 months, even I can be fallible! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

respect

I have PMed the users you identified as being subject to disrespect by myself, I do not wish this to be interpreted as a non-apology,but am sincere in my position and regard actions in main-space as more significant than the toing and froing of users' sqirmishing across talk pages. However, you seem to be implying the user access should accord more respect, that is not a foundation of the document we are working on. I have accorded the respect we all deserve in volunteering our time here, at least, that is my preference. As always, welcome user (with additional access), I am sincere in this and wish you well. cygnis insignis 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment about respect was regarding the two admins, and the fact that they appear to be trying to "steer" the discussion towards their own point of view using a misrepresentation of the facts, and constantly dismissing those who disagree with them. The "respect" comment was not aimed at you. As you say, user access does not in any way accord more respect. You're quite right there. But the reason I brought up the admin status of the other two users is because we do expect a higher standard of conduct in our admins - they are people who have been placed in a position of trust by the community, and I therefore take it more seriously when they appear to be engaging in underhand tactics to try to influence a discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, then that was especially unhelpful of me. Thank you for taking the time to clarify that. As I said in my message to those fellows, I don't attribute any intentional 'underhandedness'. Regards, cygnis insignis 16:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think it's intentional underhandedness. Like I said, I respect the editors concerned and I will assume good faith that they believe they're doing the right thing. My criticism is that they don't seem to be listening to evidence-based refutal of their description of the previous status quo, and are instead doubling down on trying to score points against me and you and everyone opposed to their position in the discussion. The "note to closer" is quite simply wrong, there can be no doubt about that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:POTD/Unused

It's funny that you add images (promoted during a delist & replace) to WP:POTD/Unused because the previous version appeared on the Main Page, and then schedule an image which appeared already. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Armbrust: yeah, you got me there! I was looking for something a bit "special" to put up for Valentine's day, and I saw that one, showing a pair of nice flowers, was used on that day in 2007. Generally I'm working through the list of FPs that haven't appeared yet, but I think it's OK to use a bit of licence every now and again, reshowing one from 10+ years ago, if there's a reason to do so. The other time was when I reused the WW1 image on 11 November last year. Regarding those on the unused list, if you would prefer that replacement images be scheduled for POTD instead of listed as unused, then I'll be more than happy to do that. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind either way, but it should be consistent. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2019-03-25

I noticed that Template:POTD/2019-03-25 was created by the photographer. Is that something we're allowing the image creators/nominators to do now? Especially considering it's only been a few months since the promotion and I'm sure the wait in the queue for most images is a lot longer than that. —howcheng {chat} 22:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Howcheng. Yes, Charles has been doing this for some time - he schedules his own photos throughout the year on dates of his choosing. He doesn't write blurbs though. I don't know whether it's specifically allowed or not - certainly his scheduling doesn't follow the FIFO ordering rile for POTD, but personally I don't mind it too much. Sometimes I delete them if the article has no usable material, and other times (as with this one) I push them back if it's too soon since the last one. Making sure other wildlife pics get a chance too. Presumably this wasn't happening back in the days when you were the POTD king?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I certainly took requests. The only time anyone was allowed to jump the queue was for specific anniversaries or if it was their first successful FP promotion. —howcheng {chat} 23:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Howcheng: It does look like it was happening when Chris was in charge as well. See Template:POTD/2017-06-23 for example. Featured in Sep 2016 and POTD just nine months later. If you think I should take a tougher stance and push these back to their rightful place in the queue then probably that can be done, but maybe as long as it is only one person doing it, maybe let sleeping dogs lie? It's not like POTD is a vibrant hotbed of activity where everyone is fighting for position anyway. What do you think? He does produce a lot of high quality photos for us too, which is a good thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not involved anymore. If nobody complains, then no big deal. —howcheng {chat} 04:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Smashing it

No templated barnstar, but thanks for your work on keeping bollocks off the main page. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: thanks for the message. And as long as we're improving things for our readers, then the work is always worth doing. Enjoy your trip to Vienna/Melbourne/Sydney.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK Queue 2 (OK gesture)

Amakuru, since you moved the article from "OK (gesture)" to "OK gesture" and adjusted the hook accordingly, the DYKmake in the credits section also needs to be adjusted, by changing the first parameter from "OK (gesture)" to "OK gesture", while leaving the subpage parameter as "OK (gesture)". Can you please make that change? Otherwise, the contributor credit will not be made properly when the nomination hits the main page. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:  Done - thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

POTD

I hope you found my previous noms for POTD helpful. I was hoping to nominate more in the future but want to ask how you determine the order. First in first out seems like a difficult thing to determine. Can you offer any advise? Are your subpages POTD_X in FIFO order? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

POTDs can be scheduled out of order if there is a relevant anniversary, event or birthday. For instance, we're looking for a new FP related to the periodic table for next month. Images are roughly FIFO, but since FPC has a number of favorite topics (animals, paintings, theatrical illustrations, banknotes) the order needs to be varied to maintain variety day-to-day. There is a helpful page, WP:Featured picture thumbs, which lists FPs in order of promotion. Of course, nominations at WP:FPC of new images for POTD are always welcome. MER-C 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: thanks for your message, and thanks also for your help with POTD. As MerC says, the order is basically FIFO, most of the ones I pick are the oldest ones, but personally I do use a fair bit of discretion in picking them. A lot of the oldest are artworks so we don't want too many of those all in a row. Sometimes I post a recent promotion, just to mix it up a bit. As for how they're picked, my POTD X pages do have them in the correct order I think, but I now use a desktop app I developed myself, which gets the FP info via the Wiki API and allows filtering by category and so on. I might try to port that to a public Web version at some point, in which case you could also use it. Probably the most time consuming part of the job at the moment is getting the blurb together, mainly because all of it has to be properly cited. That means it's not enough to just lift sentences from the article, they have to be properly references sentences, and if there aren't enough of those to make a summary then I have to go and look for book or Web sources to produce a basic minimum of info for the blurb. If you're able to do some of that as well as some scheduling є, that would be very useful. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Park Street

Please see this recent move request. Calidum 03:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Calidum: oh thanks, and sorry I didn't notice that. I've requested for the closer to relist the move, because it doesn't look right to me and I had already objected to this in the discussion at User talk:Cuchullain. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru/Archive_15&oldid=1070604384"