Archives

April 2020–March 2022 March 2022–

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them He should not be given alerts for those areas.

On 7 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lonely runner conjecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that random runners are lonely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lonely runner conjecture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lonely runner conjecture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,132 views (594.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovinus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Does Major League Hacking meet WP:NCORP?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever met any people born in Africa who live in the United States? If so, which countries were they born in? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on your talk page and confirm that you will not be creating any more articles. Ovinus (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the ping? Atsme 💬 📧 18:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I didn't! Will go there. Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the ping. Atsme 💬 📧 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where'd you go? You didn't finish Pt 1 yet. Don't forget to ping me when you do finish. Atsme 💬 📧 23:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing Bangalore and help improve it to Good Article status! Happy editing! Kpddg (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Ovinus (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus, how are you handling the Revdels? I am trying to use the script recommended by User:Diannaa at this talk discussion, but it is driving me nuts and really slowing me down. I am spending more time trying to figure out how to get an admin to revdel the copyvios than I am on the actual copyvios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, yeah it's a little confusing. For now I just find the ID of the first offending revision (usually by Martinevans, but potentially by someone else) and plop at the top ((copyvio-revdel|start=<id>|end=<current id, or whatever id you removed the violation>|url=[optional url] (see <CCI link>) )) Most of my revdel requests have been declined due to age, tho. I am new to all this as well, so idk if that's best practice. (And I'm a little disillusioned by it all...!) Thank you for helping out! Ovinus (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the script recommended by Diannaa on her talk, but can't figure out the end id; it seems to get it wrong most of the time, so I must be misunderstanding. I don't request revdel on the very old ones (Dianna says more than 50 revisions). Maybe I should start adding the template manually, but the script also places a notice on article talk, which I like.

While I'm here ... I know I still owe you a response on a very old query about article leads ... shiny things keep getting in the way, and the lacks of strenuous review of leads at FAC has so demotivated me, along with other FAC factors, that I have mostly disengaged there ... would LOVE to have you review FAR leads!. Is there more you still want to know, or should I archive that old thread on my talk? First, I had my son's wedding ... then a family medical issue ... and now both dear hubby and I have COVID, so it's always something! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, re disillusionment, yes CCI work is soul-crushing ... I have engaged mostly because it's semi-automatic work I can do while I have COVID brain fog, where I don't dare go do a major review of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think the "end id" is the first edit on which the copyvio was removed, or rendered negligibly small. There's no point revision deleting text unless it is expunged from the intermediate edits as well. So usually that end id is you or me removing the content, or someone else who eventually removed it. As to identifying that edit... unless there's a tool for that, the simplest way is a binary search, I guess, informed by edit sizes.

Sigh indeed CCI is pain. I think I have similar motivations; too tired to contribute substantial content, but still wanting to contribute how I can. Sorry to hear you and your husband have been sick; I wish you and him a speedy recovery. And thanks for remembering that question! Certainly you can archive it. FAR actually seems like a good place to get leads into shape, especially when it's on an important article. I'm not sure how rigorously leads are reviewed at FAC, but I deinitely notice that leads tend to deteriorate much faster than the rest of an FA. Editors, at least the more pedantic or fanatic among them, see a yummy article like Solar eclipse, Pi, etc. and feel emboldened to add something to the lead. I can't believe that the introduction of Pi for a while was

The number π (spelled out as "pi") is a mathematical constant, approximately equal to 3.14159. It is defined in Euclidean geometry[a] as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and also has various equivalent definitions.

No. No. No. (For reference, in more advanced mathematics pi is generally defined without reference to geometry. But that has no place in the first sentence of one of the most important constants in mathematics, which we learn about in grade school, and the clarification that it's Euclidean geometry is risible. Pedantry, pedantry of the highest order.) So I replaced it with something nearly word-for-word identical with the version reviewed at FAC, which is

The number π (spelled out as "pi") is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately equal to 3.14159.

I hope you'll agree with me that's better. :) Ovinus (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! The problem with most of our math articles isn't the math; it's the english (I've said that before). In almost all of their leads, one can go to any basic website and find better information than what is in our leads! I'll keep trying to use the script to get the revdel ranges, but it has a toggle about using or not the "end" diff, which I seem to be too dense to sort. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding... articles written by mathematicians, for mathematicians. At GAN I've been pleasantly surprised by David Eppstein's work on making math articles digestible. I try to do my part when browsing math articles, too, but I'm not a professional mathematician and it's dangerous to make sweeping edits to topics you don't deeply understand. Leads, though, leads... what percent of readers even glance at the body? I wish there were some statistics... Ovinus (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have the pleasure of interacting with Geometry guy? He was the unofficial leader of the GA process at one time, but scarcely edits now ... but he knew how to write math in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I arrived here too late... that sucks that he's gone. I'll have to check out some of his work. The ability to explain math with clarity is rare and valuable; I try my best. I have a prospective draft at User:Ovinus/sandbox2 that I dreamt of bringing to FAC, but I don't know the last time a math article even passed! One option to make everyone happy is liberal use of footnotes. That way the layman can get the main ideas, while the pedant can edit and enjoy the prolix and unintelligible footnotes. Ovinus (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea (although for some odd reason, there are objections to the extensive footnotes at Joan of Arc's FAR). When I am over COVID and caught up, will you ping my talk page for me look more closely at your draft? (Because I lose track and get caught up in shiny things :). Right now, my sleep cycles are so out of whack I don't know when I'll "normalize", and once I get out of quarantine, I have real life stuff to catch up on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can never make everyone happy, can you?? :P Sounds good, although it still needs a lot of work. I occasionally give math- and CS-related talks to middle and high school students—the latter group, at least the subset of them interested in mathematics, is a good target for the leads of many of these articles—and I'm always learning how to better explain ideas. But if I explain at a similar level, it will be considered too imprecise, even if I'm careful to not oversimplify to the point of being erroneous. Ahhhhhh. Sounds good—again, feel better and thanks for your help at the CCI. :) Ovinus (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovinus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barkeep! Ovinus (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the COI edits to WP Diamonds. If you still think it doesn't make NCORP, please feel free to re-tag it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for reviewing the GAN of Quadrisecant! However, I noticed that when you passed it, you forgot to do WP:GAN/I#R4 #4 by updating the WikiProject assessment from C to GA. I've done this for you, but in the future, please make sure to change the "class=foo" parameter to GA, or use WP:RATER. Thank you, CLYDEFRANKLIN 17:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July songs

Thank you for what you told Martinevans123! - I'm doing many things besides Wikipedia and have pics from vacation days to offer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you're welcome! Hoping Martin can help with the cleanup and return to editing. Lovely pictures; File:Tiefenbach,_sheep.jpg is my favorite. Ovinus (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ovinus,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

More pictures if you like, but less sensational ;) - You kindly reviewed a Bach cantata for FAC, would you do that again for BWV 56? The coordinator wants to see action. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Gladly; I'll take a look. Ovinus (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping. We seem to disagree though what is Wikipedia voice and what not. The ideas of the 1907 writer were never meant to be understood as facts, Please check if that is clear enough now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (... and now the coordinator is on vacation). - Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... but another coordinator promoted it, - thank you again for your support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Well done :) Ovinus (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

at rfd Enigma^msg 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enigmaman: Care to elaborate? Is it due to this trademark [1]? Feel free to list it at RfD; I have no strong feelings about it. Never mind, was thinking of the wrong redirect. Also, keep in mind that blanking a redirect does not remove it, only creates an empty "article". The best way to delete redirects is to list them at RfD. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ovinus,

There was a recent RFC discussion at the Village Pump earlier this year that stipulated that only recently created articles should be moved to Draft space. The rule of thumb about what "recent" means is 3-6 months old or younger. Definitely not articles that were created in 2009. So, please do not move older articles to Draft space that shouldn't go there. If you believe an article is inappropriate, then either improve it yourself or tag it for an approved form of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (See Special:Diff/1104639426.) Ovinus (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ovinus, Thank you for editing my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab_Moradi&diff=1104780882&oldid=1103114872), but there were some information with reliable sources which you have both deleted the text and the corresponding sources of which. You have also omitted the external links. As in Wikipedia the priority goes to editing articles rather deleting them, I would be obliged if you kindly let me know of the reason and the basis on which you deleted parts of the article and its reliable sources. R30591 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(See Special:Diff/1104948230.) Ovinus (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1105059864) the section 'Indian Horoscopes' from Horoscope arguing that it is unsourced information, but you didn't remove Construction of a horoscope in Western astrology section and many other sections from the same page which are also unsourced. Why did you display this biased behaviour? Riteshmmec (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovinus,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>inane detail

That was literally translated from the original Japanese article. Take it up with them. Eddienahui (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddienahui: I could have worded that edit summary more tactfully, and for that, I apologize. However, text like She was not never had any experience with boys, and was worried that she would never have a boyfriend and would remain a virgin for life is a policy violation (see biographies of living persons, which establishes stringent guidelines for such content). When translating, it is still your responsibility to only include content which is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and it is other editors' right to remove unsuitable content. Please be careful going forward. Ovinus (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Eddienahui (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But speak with your Japanese colleagues. Eddienahui (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I (unfortunately) have no control over the content of a different Wikipedia, especially that of a language which I don't speak. Ovinus (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...where did I lose you at Geoland? Was there something I could have explained better? Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Hm? I thought I said keep on those misguided AfDs. If you're talking about Cirque Lake, I didn't realize that the lake was actually mentioned on the page after the linked page; knowing that would have led me to !vote keep rather than striking. Basically the linked page said "Grizzly Bear Cirque" and I incorrectly assumed that was the only "cirque" described, and that the reference was in error. So that was sloppy. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! Atsme 💬 📧 01:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the notice says it may take four months - however, the first few translations I did found editors and comments immediately. Not sure of the inconsistency - perhaps it was the subject matter (pornography), which I find darkly amusing to put it politely. Anyway, what do I do need to next to get these moving? Thanks. Eddienahui (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddienahui: Hahaha, perhaps. Nice work on the translation at Draft:Mitsunobu Nakahara! It's heavily based on one source, but the depth of coverage is easily enough to pass our guidelines. I've cleaned up the article a bit to conform with Wikipedia's style guidelines. I'd suggest you put the bibliography entry into the citation directly (use the trans-title= parameter to provide the English title).

I'm glad that you developed in draft space—that's what it's for!—and you're probably good to push Draft:Mitsunobu Nakahara into main space. It would be frowned upon for me to "mark it as reviewed", since you came to me, but likely another reviewer will come around and approve it. They might tag it as "heavily relies on one source". Going forward, focus on translating Japanese articles that have multiple sources, as that will ease the concerns of reviewers. For example, your drafts for Hidaka Narumi and Shoujo Commando IZUMI will probably be moved back if you push it into mainspace—editors won't be comfortable with the number of sources right now. Find at least three different sources. That can be hard, I know, but it helps everyone out.

Let me explain (part of) the unfortunate reason why: We get a lot of machine translations, which are invariably shitty and pollute Wikipedia's content on non-English topics. If you want to see an example, check out User:Ovinus/sandbox—a menagerie of machine translations, e.g. Goryō faith. In fact, the usage of non-English sources at all is somewhat controversial, simply because most editors can't verify the content. Of course, your articles are the work of someone totally competent in both languages. But patrollers (and editors in general) are often wary, which is why, practically speaking, it's especially important to have plenty of sources, if none are in English. It gives the article credence/legitimacy.

That was long, but I hope actionable. Tl;dr, nice work! Draft:Mitsunobu Nakahara is probably good to go. Look for at least two more sources for your other drafts before pushing them into mainspace. And look to translate Japanese articles which already have three good sources, or add those sources yourself. Sorry that I'm ignorant of Japanese; I'd help you more substantively if I could. Ovinus (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well-noted. Will stick to three citations in the future. If can find English source, will input, but unlikely (I speak Vietnamese as well and it's hard to find sources for this in English).

Anyway, will continue to action. You have been helpful. Thank you. Eddienahui (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the logic behind including a section on some rando Nigerian starving to death being seen as deserving of its own section on Wikipedia? I was very rudely accused of trying to "Censor" Wikipedia by some loser incel, yet the section clearly does not belong. A) Other similar pages on foreigners in Japan don't include such section B) The case is literally not notable in Japan C) There is a case of a Sri Lankan in Japan that is more notable and yet hers (Wishma Sandali) is not anywhere featured on her own expatriate page. I can understand if it was included in the "See Also" category, or had its own article, but speaking as someone who actually lives in Japan/actually communicates with the Japanese community, I fail to see how its relevant to an article on foreigners living in Japan. A quick Google search of both (Nigerian Japan VS Sri Lankan Japan) also shows how much more significant Wishma's case is to Japan than Sonny's. So, logically, it doesn't belong. So please explain the logic. Eddienahui (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]