User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 45

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

Adetola Nola deleted

Hello @Vanamonde93

How are you doing? You deleted an Article I created "Adetola Nola" which was proposed for deletion by @falkron, Pls can you at least restore the article, asses it, then give your suggestion on how to improve it. It's my first article as a Wikipedian and I need every help I could get from you to improve on the article. Pls, keep in mind that @falkron has taken her time to review the article the second time.

I would appreciate it if you can guide me if it's not following Wikipedia policy but if it meets requirements kindly restore the article so that it can be improved on. Thanking you! Thisiswhyiambroke (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moregan12: I'm sorry, but I can't restore it unilaterally, because it was deleted as the result of this deletion discussion. You are correct that it was proposed for deletion at one point, but it was recreated (by you) and then deleted again. The deletion discussion determined that the topic is not currently notable, because there is insufficient coverage of it in independent reliable sources. As such, if you are very keen on writing an article on this particular person, you should wait until more sources become available (for a young entrepreneur, this will usually be the case). In the meantime, I would recommend working on something else. Wikipedia's a big place; I'm sure there are other topics you're interested in. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for time, I would like to add that Falkron has been giving me suggestions on how to improve the article. Notability? Yes the topic is notable.. I understand Wikipedia is a big community and it will take time to understand the rules of engagement here. This is my first article and i dont want to jump into another article with the fear of being deleted. I want to know my mistakes and how I can improve on this article. I am asking you to help me and also guide me to be better in this community. The topic is Notable and I can source for more reliable sources. I would appreciate if ypu can restore it, then move it to draft so I can improve on the article. Thank You @Vanamonde93 Thisiswhyiambroke (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Moregan12: Okay, I'm going to AGF and give you a draft, Draft:Adetola Nola. Please remember that you should not recreate this without substantially more sourcing, and should ideally go through the WP:AFC process. I appreciate that you think your chosen subject is notable, but if you really want my advice, it would be to work on existing articles of clear-cut notability, and not getting into the frequently-frustrating cycle of trying to create an article on a marginal topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your consideration and advice. I will definitely work on existing articles and also look to contribute to the Wikipedia's community, I will also try my best to improve on the article.
I'd love to seek for your advice when working on other articles and this Topic in particular.
Let me say you've got a new protege. LOL!
Thanks for your help@Vanamonde93 Thisiswhyiambroke (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

Thank you for two DYK in one set! The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! - Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

On a train, returning from days off. Re Template:Did you know nominations/Danylo Matviienko: on the last train, I noticed that the hook in prep wasn't ALT5, as the reviewer had preferred, with explanation, and I preferred. I couldn't react, because the train's IP was blocked for editing. In this train, it's better, but now you moved it to a queue. Can you be please use ALT5? The present hook misses that he now sings in Germany, quite a career step, and what kind of repertoire which means what kind of voice. The math should be a quirky little extra, but not about all we say about a singer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, fine by me. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thank you with travel pics and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hello, I found your name at CAT:RFRD and I clicked randomly and you were the first one that has edited within the last 24 hours and edits frequently. I am looking at having some revisions redacted under RD2. It is the page Matt Birk and the edits are the edits from Lexipro4933 and my reverts of their edits. They contain defamatory and potentially libelous comments based on (what appears to be) the editors strong personal opinions on the subject being discussed in the edits. The defamatory comments are no longer in the article.--Rockchalk717 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rockchalk: Thanks for asking. Having reviewed the content in question, I do not believe it meets the threshold for WP:RD2. Most of the content is sourced to Vanity Fair, which we consider generally reliable, and content that it reports can't really be considered egregiously offensive. abetterminnesota.org is of doubtful reliability, and likely should not be used as a source, but unless there's questions over the factual accuracy of the content, I don't see how it's worthy of revision deletion either. I have no opinion on whether the content should be in the article, and I will not that in general commentary from secondary sources is preferable to cherry-picked quotations from the subject of a biography. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I think there might be a misunderstanding as to what I am claiming is defamatory. The quote isn't what was my issue. It is the unsourced statement after the quote that I have an issue with. It's the one after the source: <ref>{{Cite news |title=Baltimore Ravens' Matt Birk Stays Centered on Christ |work=National Catholic Register |url=http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/baltimore-ravens-matt-birk-stays-centered-on-christ/ |access-date=November 3, 2018}}</ref>--Rockchalk717 22:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: I saw that; I do not see it as libelous, or indeed even offensive; that's an extremely common thing not to believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This might be considered assuming intent, but the "does not" is a typo. I think they were going to word it different way but changed it at the last minute. The editor made a statement on their talkpage that they were intending to say that Matt Birk does believe that statement, not that he doesn't.--Rockchalk717 22:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. However, the article didn't attribute the belief to him; the typo remained in all the versions that I can see. Also, even attributing the opposite belief does not, in my view, rise to the level of revision deletion. I'm not likely to change my position here. You may approach a different admin if you wish, but I suspect they'd give you the same answer. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom EC

I see you were on the ArbCom election commission 3 years ago, and are still active. The nominations for this year's EC close in 2 days, and so far we have one nomination, and they've never been on the EC before. Would you consider joining them on the nomination page? IMHO, the EC should have at least one person who has done it before, so we don't lose institutional memory, and can pass it down to newbies who join this year. Hope you have ther time and the inclination. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yeah I saw there weren't many nominations, so I was considering it. I haven't run a second time because a lot of the work was related to generating lists of voters, which is not something I have the skills for. Also, it's not exactly enjoyable work. If there's not more candidates soon I may toss my hat in the ring. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for considering it. Cyberpower has tossed his hat into the ring, so I'm much less concerned. Glad you've got your eye on it. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russian political jokes on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

FAC review request

Any chance you'd be able to review John Raymond science fiction magazines for FAC? Any input would be great. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw it yesterday, and thought it had had enough input; but since you'd like more, I'd be happy to. I'm a little under the weather, it may take me a couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hope you feel better soon, and of course no need to review it until you feel up to it. It does have quite a bit of input but three of the reviewers are unlikely to declare support or oppose, so it does need more reviewers. Thanks, and get well soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, it's nothing serious, I just don't feel mentally agile...I had missed that in the reviews. It would be my pleasure. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
A third reviewer jumped in and it's now promoted! So no need -- thanks anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps your next one then! Vanamonde (Talk) 22:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Hey Vanamonde. I've indicated for Samuel Johnson, an older FA, to potentially be Wikipedia's TFA in September 2023, but one of the article's original FAC nominators (@SandyGeorgia:) is hoping for a review of the literary section by a literary-specialist editor. I thought of you because of the amazing work you did at J.K. Rowling's FAR. Would you be willing to review the literary section and indicate if there are any concerns? Thanks for your help, and I hope you feel better soon. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for the compliment. I have no expertise as far as Johnson is concerned, and I don't know that I can do any heavy lifting as far as updates are concerned, but I'll take a look for what it's worth. Can I assume this isn't dreadfully urgent? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Not urgent at all. TFA won't happen for several months, if at all. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Renomination

Hello, you just closed an AfD with a closing statement leaving possibility of renomination viable. I would just like to check if the renomination is conditioned, or determined, by some timetable? ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In this case, it is not, but I would suggest allowing a few weeks to let the dust settle. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanx, and good advice. ౪ Santa ౪99° 05:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm not going to get back to this today. I've been on an international banking conference call now for nearly 2 hours. Lost wire between countries, which they assure me they will find, but does nothing for my ability to access funds. I think I am going to need wine, which will not be conducive to rewriting Foote, if I ever get off this call. SusunW (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: please, no apologies needed! You're the one doing the hard work here, and I'm nit-picking. Take your time, I'd be happy to get back to it whenever you like. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's ready for you to look at again and I appreciate your patience. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So where's the article?

I don't see it in history of Mainstream. This is in reference to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_1#Mainstream_(terminology). Can you point me to where I can find the old content? I'd like to see if something more could be rescued from it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I think this is what you're looking for? The histories were moved around a bit. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here.

Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here.

Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here.

Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can.

Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Baffle☿gab 03:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What do I say ...

... when an opera singer works in many countries, too many to name them individually? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Has she lived and worked in multiple countries? If not, I'd say it isn't necessarily worth mentioning, but if sources single out a particular performance as noteworthy, you could mention that. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not talking one person, I just read that - which you found puffery - as a general summary when singers work in which is normally not "all over the world" but substantial parts of it. It doesn't mean they live other places, but many - especially those performing leading roles - often sing in many places, while others sticlk to one house or one country. How can I neutrally distinguish? Working on Mariana Nicolesco, who performed mainly in Italy, but also in the U.S., UK, France, Netherlands, Russia, Puerto Rico, - such a list of countries would be not wanted in a lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I think how you summarize it really depends on the specifics of an article; my point is that "international career" without further detail doesn't say very much, particularly within the European Union. Is it even likely that a European singer who is wiki-notable hasn't performed in multiple countries? My approach would be to summarize what the sources say about her performances; multiple sources will often all you to pick a notable instance or two. Also; I would find "[person] lived and worked in [country] and performed internationally" to less puffy that "made an international career". Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
If it's within Europe, I'd say "career in Europe", but there are many who also perform a lot in the U.S., Japan and Australia, to give a typical example. I am sorry for little sensibility to English nuances. Up to your intervention I thought that the phrase was a neutral description of a career spanning countries in different continents. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
How about just adding "and has performed internationally"? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you understand that I can't tell the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I do; that's why our model works well, is it not? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Slow River

On 9 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Slow River, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nicola Griffith's Slow River, described as a lesbian romance, features a "sophisticated depiction of environmental management"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Slow River. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Slow River), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

October songs

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

today's DYK: two facts from the two concert of this years Rheingau Musik Festival I liked best, both a cappella singing. If you follow the songs, you see a circus, where I performed singing, and in the end the whole tent joined for Dona nobis pacem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice. I know that piece, as it happens, and also liked singing as a round. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
nice! - who shall separate us --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Greyhound (1791 ship)

Hi Vanamonde, I am not disputing the deletion of the article, though I obviously do not approve. What I would like to know is if there is some way to retrieve the info from the article so that I could move it to my sandbox to work on it over time? I have been able to do that with other deletions, but I don't see how in this case.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I can restore it to your userspace, but I will do so only if you commit not to moving it back to article space until the sources is substantially improved, and/or by using the AfC process. Are you willing to make such a commitment? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course. That doesn't mean that I approve the rationale for deletion, I just won't restore the article.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to approve, as long as you're not attempting an end-run around AfD, which is why I ask...here you go: User:Acad Ronin/Greyhound (1791 ship) Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your good work Andre🚐 19:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrevan, appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Crazy day yesterday. The construction crew working on the house next door pushed a second story wall down which fell on our house. It sounded like Armageddon had come. Obviously I abruptly left WP, but all is fine, no one was hurt, only minor damage to our house (except tons of dust). Sorry I stopped working without explanation, but you know, real life is an unpredictable adventure. I'll get back to Kroeber directly. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: That sounds incredibly annoying, so glad nobody was hurt. Please, WP:NODEADLINE and all that; there's no rush whatsoever. I'm also quite busy today and tomorrow, and as you've seen, I work in fits and starts in any case. Take all the time you need. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the important thing was no injuries. I've noticed that our working styles seem complementary. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I had been thinking the same! I don't enjoy digging around in newspapers for names and dates and places, but I do like synthesizing literary critique, and scholarly material more generally...and you certainly seem to do a lot of the former, though I can't speak to whether you enjoy it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The research bit is my thing. I love it. For me, the things they did are somewhat secondary. I want to build the context of the person, if that makes sense. If you like synthesizing critique, there are quite a few reviews of her works here.
There are indeed. I'm working on a draft of her biography of her husband at the moment; there were a half-dozen reviews of that alone; and I wrote Ishi in Two Worlds when writing TK's article a while back. I almost wonder if her other works are notable, too, as of course we don't want the biography to become a lengthy series of book reviews...so I think I'm going to spend a happy few hours writing start-class pages about one or two of her books, and then bringing a couple of sentences about each into the parent article. My colleagues have always said I get too deep into the side projects, but hey, this a hobby, nobody can tell me not to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. And yes, my love of research is impossible for most of my sphere to comprehend, but it makes me happy. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I think I've added what I can without getting overly mogged in details. Obviously, you are free to change anything I added. I enjoyed learning about her. I am now seriously intrigued by Grace Buzaljko, and may see if I can find enough to write about her. I love how working on one person leads to discovery of others. Let me know if I can help further. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Your additions were greatly helpful, as always. I want to go over the scholarly sources in a little more detail, and I've been sidetracked writing about the autobiography; I thought I could look through a couple of reviews and summarize a sentence or two, but the book is decidedly notable in its own right, and I'd like to get it right. Are there any major gaps you can see? If not, once I'm done I'll ask a couple of uninvolved folks to take a look. I was thinking of Gog, and perhaps there's an anthropologically-inclined editor at WIR or WIG...after which we can go to FAC, I'm thinking. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't work through the scholarly stuff because you like to and I don't. I did research the names of the books etc. that Buzaljko gave publishing dates for but no names, tedious and a bit difficult, but I like a challenge. I thought the stuff of Alfred's that she published should be noted by name because obviously it increased his legacy, but she did the hard work of getting it "publishing ready". If there are gaps, I am blind to them. Heck, we even know the names of the houses she lived in. Perhaps just post at WIG/WIR talk and ask? (Buzaljko is proving difficult. Grace Wilson, who she was from 1922-1963 is very common, and her mom Elizabeth "Betty" Johnson is a nightmare, but I managed to find her step-father and her sister. LOL But, I refuse to allow her to defeat me.) SusunW (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me :) Buzaljko seems tricky. I keep finding mentions of her work as an editor, so I feel she ought to be notable, but reviews typically focus on the authors...I agree TK's work editing AK's writing is worth including. I'll post at WIG/WIR within the week. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The (information removed) Barnstar
I absolutely appreciate the work that you and the rest of the Oversight Team do. Thanks for protecting the privacy of all! SunilNevlaFan✨ 19:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@SunilNevlaFan: Thank you, and thanks for your vigilance too in searching out information that shouldn't be public. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Early Warning Labs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Early Warning Labs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. EricFishers11 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI ...

You did the close on The Banner's AfD tban, but it doesn't seem as if anyone notified him on his talk page of it. Ravenswing 23:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a formal requirement to do so, but I will leave a note. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Honey Ojukwu

Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Ojukwu, on these grounds:

  • There was no evidence provided of UPE by the article's creator (as opposed to the socks trying to get it deleted, and apparently to discredit the subject)
  • The article has been recently and significantly edited by non UPE editors (including me)
  • The achievement of the 2020 ELOY Award for "On Air Personality of the Year", confers notability.
  • UPE in and of itself is not grounds for deletion

Note that I have also undone your edit to the ELOY awards article per WP:REDLINK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I see no other way to close that discussion, but if you feel strongly about it I would consider relisting. Before I do so, however, would you consider recreating with your own text and sources? That nixes the UPE argument altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The UPE argument is nixed by the fact that the only "evidence" for it is the word of the blocked sock who wanted the article deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I ignored the sock edits when I was closing the AfD; they had nothing to do with the outcome. Are you saying the article wasn't promotional as written? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The AfD itself was a sock edit; you hardly ignored that. I'm saying no evidence of UPE was offered. You deleted solely on the bass that "There remains substantial concern about UPE, and the single argument to keep, while not unreasonable, is insufficient to overcome that." "Concern" about UPE, absent evidence of UPE, is not a ground for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I did ignore it, the only arguments I considered were your own and the three non-socks arguing for deletion. UPE isn't a reason for deletion, but promotionalism is, as you well know. What are you asking for here? I've suggested that you recreate the article yourself, and I've expressed willingness to reopen the AfD, and you've ignored both suggestions. A different closure isn't reasonable given the evidence and arguments presented there. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence of "promotionalism". I have ignored neither of your suggestions. If you won't change your close (which you should), then you should reopen the AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I'm very pleased to present the Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown Jewels to Vanamonde93, for your work on "Did you know?" and the good and featured article processes! — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! Alexander the Great is an elite club.

The Timeless Triple Crown is based on the oldest piece of content, not the newest, so I don't think you're eligible in the FC category. Now you've got the eligible content, holding onto the green pluses and gold stars for five years would do it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you, much appreciated. 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article mentorship

Hello! As part of the Women in Green editathon, I brought Caroline Harrison up to good article status. SusunW went above and beyond in helping me during the good article review, and I'm really happy with the result. More to my point, I'm wondering if you could tell me whether it's a viable FAC or if it's close to becoming one. I've never nominated an FAC, so I went to WP:FAM. I recognized your name from the editathon, so I figured you were the right person to ask. Any help would be appreciated, but really my main concern is just a quick reality check as to whether it's worth putting through the nomination process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Apologies for the slow response; I don't know how I missed this message, but I did. I will take a look; if I haven't replied within 4-5 days, please feel free to nudge me. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, nudge. It's not terribly important, I mostly just don't want to waste everyone's time by nominating an article that's not ready, since I only have a vague idea of what's looked for in FAC. Also, I plan on working on a lot more first lady articles following generally the same pattern, and I don't want to replicate any hard-to-fix errors I might be making without realizing it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for the reminder...unfortunately this weak got very busy, and next week isn't any better. You're not wasting your time, and I'd quite like to read what you've done here, but I may need a few more days, apologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

  • England Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
  • New York City Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
  • Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
  • Chicago PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
  • Toronto Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
  • Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
  • Toronto Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
  • SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
  • Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
  • Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Heading

I want to respect Fowler's request not to post on his talk page (it always comes to that, like here). It was a mistake on my part to start a section by mentioning Fowler. I changed it accordingly when I realised I was not doing it right, but it doesn't mean it should be changed without addressing me first. But I want to tell you something. I think the fact that Fowler always keeps pinging you when he needs something, probably operating under the wrong perception that he would be automatically supported, is not good for you. I've seen you on several talk pages, and was always appreciative of your fair approach. I should ask you to note Fowler's brash and almost rude attitude. He takes conversations very personally. I don't appreciate such behaviour and I think you should make him aware of the fact that it's unacceptable. Shahid • Talk2me 16:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: Thanks for changing the section heading. This is fundamentally a content dispute, so de-escalating was the right thing to do. I've interacted with Fowler for quite a while now, and am very familiar with him. If you've gotten the impression that I've always supported him, you're quite wrong; if you look through the history of our interaction, you will see we've disagreed quite often. He pings me because I'm familiar with political matters in the ARBIPA area, and if I have a problem with it I will tell him so. Please, focus on the content here. These discussions tend to get unpleasant when neither side is willing to engage thoroughly with the sources, in in this case F&F is at least correct that Akshay Kumar's activities have been discussed in a political light far more than the article reflects. I know you're interested in writing a high-quality biography, and that requires engaging with this material. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your fair and measured response. Speaking of biographies, I'm reading now Theodora Kroeber, as I've noticed you just nominated it for FA. Very interesting. Good luck with that (just a point though, if you don't mind; I think wikilinking to generation gaps to express age differences between Kroeber's husbands and herself is not very fitting. Today, just as the linked WP article says, generetional gaps often refer to people within the same families, namely children, parents and grandparents). Shahid • Talk2me 17:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point, I will remove the link. If you have further comments, or wish to review at FAC, you're most welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Drive by comment, the source specifically stated that her study focused on the generation-gap in such marriages. She was quoted as saying "crossing generations is a way of life too aberrant, too special except for some few, particularly when it is the man who is young..." To me the wording gave the distinct impression that her study was more than just a look at May-December marriages, but a nuance related to culture (i.e. the foundation of anthropological studies) and how different generations see the world differently. I noted that you removed it and left it up to you, but seeing these comments here, I am now reconsidering. I think it is absolutely fitting that she bring out the point that such marriages are difficult because the parties don't have the same frame of references. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@SusunW: I was looking for the other link you posted, and hadn't found it yet...that's a fair argument, but I'm a little concerned about an easter egg link. Would it be okay with you if I used the Age disparity link instead? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understand what an "easter egg link" is. The problem with the age disparity link, if you are talking about the one I posted above, is that it doesn't really address the nuance of the differences in the cultural references of the partner, like generation gap does. The article on age disparity simply boils the issue down to power/provider vs. stability. The only cultural aspect it addresses is that in some countries the gap is bigger and in others less. Her specific wording seems to point to an actual cultural phenomena where each partner is of a different generation and has different societal and cultural references. I don't see those as being the same. SusunW (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
An easter egg link, simply, is a link that points to an unexpected page. In this case, the page title is a stretch. You make a persuasive argument, so I'll restore it, but it's possible someone will complain at FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, I learned something from the discussion at any rate, easter egg, who knew? Perhaps her description resonated with me because I've seen this firsthand. My mom's husband is 30 years younger than she and we often have to remind her he sees the world through the same eyes as us kids. Sometimes it's comical, but sometimes it is tragic. For the most part, they are amazingly compatible (and it had nothing to do with power/provider vs. stability. She wanted someone young and adventurous enough to travel and he wanted someone who wasn't focused on having kids. Our article on age disparity is far too narrow and stereotypical.) SusunW (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt our article is thin; it's a startlingly undiscussed topic, particularly in the case where the woman is older, and TK makes this point herself. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Pearce (2nd nomination)

Hello, can you reconsider your no consensus close on this AfD? The only argument for keeping, MOS:DAB (DABMENTION), is a manual of style, not a content guideline, and so carries no weight. NOTDIRECTORY is extremely straightforward ("just the notable ones"), and conflicts with no other policy. A numerical disadvantage cannot overturn policy (WP:DGFA, WP:CONLEVEL), certainly not one of 3 against 5, nor can other guidelines.

Furthermore, your advice on having a broader discussion had already been suggested by the closer of the first AfD; a discussion was held, and the wording of NOTDIRECTORY was kept. Yet now the issue was demurred to for a second time, on the same grounds. At this point the burden of opening a discussion should lie on those who want to change/ignore policy, not those who don't. Avilich (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Avilich:, sorry, but no. There is no consensus in that discussion, and no other closure that would go uncontested. If you want to go to DRV you may do so, because any other outcome would end up there anyway. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 05:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_45"