User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel

If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here.

Happy New Year!

Hi BanyanTree, I hope you're keeping well. So, another year rolls by, and one new FA to my roster during 2013 (Paul Kagame). At this cracking rate I might have ten by 2020!

I'm in to the deep end now, and priorities for this year include Rwandan Revolution, Rwandan Civil War and Rwandan Genocide, topics I know you contributed a lot to back in the day.

All the best, and hope to see you around the Wiki, as and when time permits.....  — Amakuru (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Good job on Rwandan Revolution! (Clearly I haven't been paying attention.) I must have spent three years telling myself I would throw up an article on that topic.

Hopefully I'll find myself some new books and be inspired to help out. Rwandan Genocide kicked my ass back in the day, and I may be too emotionally traumatized for that one though. ;) - BanyanTree 18:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that would be great if you have some time to get involved! I've got a bit sidetracked from the Revolution article in the past couple of weeks, partly because the best work I've found on Google regarding the subject (Church and Revolution in Rwanda) has interesting pages missing from the preview and I'd quite like to head over to the British Library when I have time to look things up properly. I've also spent some time assessing missing articles for WP:RWANDA and compiling a list of all those, ordered by page views last year, which you can see at WP:WikiProject Rwanda/Article Views 2013. It makes for some interesting reading, but also confirms what one might have suspected, that the most visible article in the project (with the exception of things not really much about Rwanda, such as English language, French language and Nile) is the Rwandan Genocide article, followed by Rwanda itself.

I'm interested to know what bit your ass regarding the genocide article? I must have missed that one. I guess it will possibly be the hardest of the articles to edit and maintain a neutral tone, given that there may be more opinionated people floating around than for other Rwanda topics! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I actually saw a message on my talk the day it was posted! Heh.

I made a comment back in 2006 (God, that makes me feel old) that I still think holds largely true:

"I also have to say that there are some serious issues with this article - the structure is horrible and there is a complete lack of citations. If you look at how an an ideal article would be designed - context leading into well referenced detail on the actual events of the Genocide in Rwanda with a section on the effects - this article falls far short. There may be partially the result of nobody wanting to tackle integrating the subpages PZFUN translated over from FR but mostly it's just the lack of some knowledgeable, skeptical and judicious editing. "

In particular, the core of the description lies within one screen's worth of content under the Genocide section. About 95% of the article is either topics of interest to foreigners, esp foreign involvement and the role of international courts, or prelude or aftermath. Part of this was a result of the unwieldy content dump when PZFUN translated content from fr.wiki to create the articles Initial events of the Rwandan Genocide, Analysis of the causes of the Rwandan Genocide, etc, etc, so the Rwandan Genocide article was written around the existence of those sub-articles, which have since largely been merged into other content .

Back when I thought that I would tackle Rwandan Genocide, I tried to build a foundation by improving/starting/breaking out Initial events, Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, Origins of Tutsi and Hutu (an article I'm still not sure I was correct to break out), and Rwandan Civil War. My ideal structure would be 50-70% article focusing on the actual genocide with section on the runup and aftermath pointing to large sub-articles. But I was already beginning to burn out, and frankly didn't have the energy to negotiate my way through a large restructuring of Rwandan Genocide, esp after I lost the battle to keep Darfur conflict from being overrun by university students with lots of passion and limited knowledge; and Ezeu and I, the two editors specializing in Ugandan topics, were outvoted in a structure proposal for Lord's Resistance Army, the article I joined the wiki to improve. Both those articles are in pathetic states at the moment. I actively avoid the LRA article at this point, because it makes me angry. Maybe I should avoid writing about ongoing conflicts.

Wow, this turned into a sad rant. The short story about my involvement in the Rwandan Genocide article is that my energy level/time wasn't nearly sufficient for my ambitions. However, I still go through periods of productive editing, and I'll try to direct those your way. - BanyanTree 20:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No problems on the sad rant... it's very interesting to get a perspective on what was going on with these things back then. I think I vaguely considered getting involved with Rwandan Genocide in 2006-07 but I still didn't quite have the courage to take on the big kahuna articles at that time. Interestingly, the comment you link to above was in response to the point I made about the excessive pre-colonial section, back when I was still SteveRwanda. It made me slightly worried at first because I've just recently inserted five new sections on the pre-colonial and colonial eras. Looking back, though, that part was absurdly long and rambling when in 2006 so hopefully no harm done. And my plan is certainly to have proportionally most of the material on the Genocide itself, with probably a larger section than now on the RPF campaign (which is slightly separate but crucial to the narrative nonetheless). If all that makes the thing too long then I'll look into some more splitting. Whenever all this takes place... if it's in reaonable shape by the end of this year then I'll be content enough!

It remains to be seen how much resistance I'll get from university students and the like; I can see how frustrating that must have been for you now. For whatever reason I was mostly free of that with Rwanda and Paul Kagame. I did have a thought that maybe that phenomenon is less prevalent now than it was around 2007 - the editor numbers have dropped since then, but I'm thinking there's a higher proportion of serious long term editors than there were. And I think the overall quality of Wikipedia is much higher than it was in 2006.

So, hopefully it will go OK, and I look forward to hearing from you again as and when you have time to do some editing!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bukwa and Bukwa District

Hi BanyanTree, I need help. I am going back to the articles I created in the past, improving the formatting of the references to conform o the recommended format on the English Wikipedia. While working on Bukwa District, it became clear that the correct spelling is Bukwo District; the Uganda Parliament website and USAID both referrer to it in that mane. I now need Administrator assistance to move Bukwa District to Bukwo District and Bukwa to Bukwo. Once those moves are made, I will go back and continue editing the articles in their new locations. Thank you. Fsmatovu (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fsmatovu, This is done. Registered users used to able to move the page over a redirect with only one revision in the history. Perhaps the rights have been changed in the past year or so that I've been inactive. Best, BanyanTree 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-UN

Template:PD-UN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. LGA _talk^edits 07:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Okra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pickle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ranu

The article Ranu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Just another piece of WP:PUFFERY about an Indian name.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Rwanda FAR

I have nominated Rwanda for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Frog Kick

Hi BanyanTree, There is a difference between "taking ownership" of an article, and keeping it one one's watchlist. I claim no ownership of any article on Wikipedia, but do make a habit of trying to improve any diving articles. This includes requesting citations for claims which are outside my personal experience or for which I cannot find references myself. I challenged your unreferenced statement that once learned, the frog kick typically becomes the standard kick, because it conflicts with my experience, and I could not remember or find a reasonably reliable corroborating reference. If you can provide such, please feel welcome to cite it in the article, as it would be valuable knowledge to me as well as the rest of the world. If not, you may delete the challenged statement, but the rest of the article is not yours to revert without a valid reason, as the information added to Wikipedia is published under a free license and unexplained deletion or reversion of valid content may be viewed as vandalism, which I do not believe was your intention. There is no great rush, If you are aware of a reference but do not currently have access to it, leave a note on the talk page and maybe someone else will be able to get hold of a copy and provide the citation. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Mount McKinley

Category:Mount McKinley, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Okra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dende. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Secret cult is death.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Secret cult is death.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Muraho neza

Good day to you, BanyanTree and I hope you're keeping well in your mostly off-wiki life!

Just to let you know that I got myself a shiny new mop today, only ten years after joining the Wiki! I hope that won't deter me too much from cracking on with Rwandan Genocide and other tricky topics though. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your fashionably late mop!

You're one of the most consistent editors I've seen, so I've no doubt that admin silliness won't pull you away too long. - BanyanTree 15:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC) (Wow, I had to pause and think to remember how to sign. It has been a long time.)

Thanks! Only just seen this reply. Fashionably late again. I met someone on a London meetup recently who told me that they "don't do any of that admin nonsense". Maybe a bit of both will be nice. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, BanyanTree. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Renamed user ixgysjijel.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BanyanTree. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Rahima Banu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahima Banu 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/Rahima Banu until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year again!

Uraho neza BanyanTree

Looks like you really have disappeared this time, no edits for a year and a half and your bit has expired. If you are reading this, however, may I wish you a very happy and prosperous 2018 and hope we may see you around here again at some point in the future! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year Amakuru. By chance, I logged in for the first time in many months recently (finding that I am no longer an admin) so saw that I had a message when I was looking up an article. Best to you and your family. - BanyanTree 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)