User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 50

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 45 ← Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52

Reverted Edit In Article On Shivaji

Hi,

This is regarding the Edit you reverted in Article on Shivaji.

I had started a 3O process for very same section, and the Editor who pitched in agreed that Lede can be modified to explicitly identify Shivaji as Founder of Maratha Empire. See discussion in Talk:Shivaji#Introduction Section Needs Changes.

Added text (identifying Shivaji as Founder of Maratha Empire) eliminates ambiguity and is backed up by solid Academic Sources, and as such is a valid addition. If you believe Grammar of added text can be modified, I am open to suggestions on those. Would be great if you can pitch in with your views on same on talk page.

Nonentity683 (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not have the time to investigate this in detail at present, but as best as I can see the high-quality sources that support your text are ones that are treating the topic in summary, not in detail. We would prefer sources that examine the topic in detail that are also high-quality scholarly sources, and to the best of my knowledge these treat Shivaji's legacy as an empire, but not his own holdings. I encourage you to find such sources and take them to the talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Starburst Intersection

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starburst Intersection. 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. EVeracite (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I have disconnected email

My email provider is being very difficult about my logging into the account I typically use for Wikipedia. I have 2FA enabled, as well as backup codes and a recovery email, so I don't know what the problem is. Given that my phone has not left my possession I have no reason to suspect compromise, but out of an abundance of caution I have changed the email linked to this account, and will not be replying to any Wikipedia email until I have changed it back. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be certain, your email provider allows to check the list of IPs that have been used to log-in to your account in the recent past. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, but that is contingent on my having access to the account in the first place...in any case, I was allowed to sign in after a 48-hour window, and having checked my activity can verify that no compromise happened. My email provider presumably went apeshit due to the combination of changing IPs, which were the result of travel and a work VPN. I will be restoring my regular email to this account shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: You've also posted this on my talk page. Be careful, as this may be construed as WP:CANVASSing. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The notice posted here was neutral; as long as the OP was not cherry-picking users to notify (I do not have time to check) this is actually quite okay. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Review request

Hello. I would like to ask if you could please review Amou Haji, which happens to be my first ever GAN. I won't need too much hand-holding, but your guidance would be most welcome. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have signed up for the GA reviewing drive this month, so perhaps I'll get to it; but it's a little outside my typical area of activity. I would also note that it's a little short; I don't usually nominate something for GA status that's short of 1000 words, and am unlikely to pass something that's around 300 words long, simply because it's extremely unlikely that an article that short can be "broad in scope" as the criteria require. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
By the very nature of the subject matter, this is as broad as the coverage will get. You think it's impossible for the article to attain GA status? 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The GA criteria are vague beyond a point, and the final decision rests with specific reviewers who are given a decent amount of leeway. And there are divergent views within the community about minimum length. So it's not impossible. I would not, however, pass it as it stands; not because it's a bad article, but because the available information is simply not enough. In case you think I'm being unfair; I've written several dozen articles that I consider too short for GA status. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Understandable, thank you for your time. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do the needful

Hello @Vanamonde93, I would request you to kindly move the requested moves at Talk:Allahabad railway division. Its been 15 days since the discussion started and most votes are in favour of the move. So I would request you to kindly move it. If you need more help regarding the consensus to change Allahabad to Prayagraj then I would request you to kindly visit Talk:Prayagraj and see there was a detailed discussion on it. And it was advised to move all other pages similarly. But we still had a discussion for that. I would request you to kindly move it now. Shaan SenguptaTalk 13:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not getting involved in that dispute as an admin. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not asking you to vote. But to close the request by moving the page. Since there is majority of vote in favour and a good discussion. The discussion seems to be done. Because there are no more comments now. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I know what you're asking, and I'm not willing to close that discussion, or get involved in it in any other way. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

On List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1881 - present)

Hi! I recently saw the decision on the consensus being to merge for List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1881 - present).

While that was originally the emerging consensus, I think that has since changed since the article was fairly significantly expanded, with several people (me included) switching to keep. Including some renaming discussions at the article's talk page.

I just thought I'd give a heads up, as a merger seems like it's likely less practical now. As a heads up you also accidentally labeled the redirect with the Merge banner instead of the renamed page. -- LoomCreek (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek: I see that there's some discussions going on, but none of them addresses the core issue at the AfD, which is that the article as currently framed is a summary of statistics, and as such don't substantially affect that consensus. If you want to reframe and retitle it instead of merging and (presumably) later splitting again, please be my guest, but it cannot be a prosified database, per WP:NOTDATABASE. I'm almost minded to redirect it to enforce the AfD closure; please don't make me use that blunt an instrument. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please understand I'm simply contacting you to clarify the situation. In terms of the actual article it provides context to strikes for each year, and an detailed analysis included for each period. I'm not sure what enforcement measure you're bringing up. But, it is currently in a renaming process at the talk page. -- LoomCreek (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek: What I mean is that given the consensus at the AfD about the current framing being inappropriate, just ignoring that outcome isn't a good idea, and would lead to dramatics. I see some support for reframing as a list of strikes: this would avoid any such problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not intending to ignore the outcome by any means. The closer just legitimately missed the change in consensus. The only remaining person that could be for merging is Shushugah. Who as evidenced by the discussion on the talk page is no longer for merging but for keep.
It's legitimately only people in either the delete or keep camp now. With maybe a minor exception for SportingFlyer who voted delete with a small possibility of a merge.
That's why I contacted you, to basically clear up any confusion.
-- LoomCreek (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Would you prefer a "delete" closure? The "keep" arguments weren't based in policy, and that outcome is not possible. Valid arguments were made about the value of the content; but the problems with the title and framing were not addressed. That adds up to a merger, though (as I said in my closing statement) re-splitting would be an option, or reframing if you want to shorten that process. I feel like I'm repeating myself here; if you wish to contest the closure formally, you need to go to DRV, but as you seem to be amenable to reframing anyway, I suggest you focus on that. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
That's not how wikipedia consensus operates.
I don't think this is an appropriate way for an administrator to act towards someone.
So I'm going to step away, have a nice day. LoomCreek (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhakota Williams

Hello, i'd just like to query your train of thought of closing this AfD. It had been relisted twice and the only further input was my own, yet you opted to consider a close for an outcome that was supported by just a third of the involved. Your closing comment does sound a little like a !vote in itself, and perhaps would have been better being as such, if you agreed with the merge proposal, rather than what feels like a WP:SUPERVOTE? I'm not sure the consensus was clearly in favour of merging and maybe you should have relisted a third time and expressed your view as a !vote? Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My closing statement wasn't a vote, because it was based on summarizing the arguments I'd read and not on my personal evaluation of the article and the source material; I haven't performed such an evaluation, and if I had I wouldn't have closed the discussion. Although you expressed opposition to a merger, I don't believe my closure is at all inconsistent with the premise of your argument, which is that a paragraph about Dhakota would be inappropriate in an article about her father; but the only content that could reasonably be merged is about the agreement related to school fees, which is in fact content about the father, not the daughter. So I don't really see why you're unhappy about this; I did explicitly say there was consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There was no consensus for a merge. There had been 2 relists after the previous merge expressions and no further input besides by own. I understand that there was a clear consensus to not have an article, and a WP:BARTENDER's close may have been necessary after a final relist, perhaps, with you expressing your own view. Even your response here feels a bit like your own opinion rather than that of a summary of the discussion. While I still think a final relist (if even to try and vindicate your own stance) would be wise, at the very least, consider whether a merge close was a genuine outcome of consensus from discussion or broadly your own personal opinion. I say this with due respect, thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I have considered it, and with due respect I decline to change my closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide

Any chance you could protect the page to keep Willwill0415 from reverting edits through IPs? Trade (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: I would be willing in principle but I'm not seeing disruption within the last week, am I missing something? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
More the fact that almost every IP edit to the page have been from him Trade (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Looking further back I see that basically all IPs have been reverted, even if they were not this sock; and considering the four previous protections this year, I've given it a year of semi. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You reverted

Hello @Vanamonde93, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard says that The Print, Scroll.in, News Laundry and The News Minute are not reliable sources because they have no neutral POV. And some of them don't even claim responsibility for their publish. Please check and clear this. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence of a discussion where consensus was reached that those aren't reliable? Because there was clear consensus here that Newslaundry, at least, is reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I never said consensus reached. The discussion points in the way that these are unreliable. Like this one - Scroll.in. The print in its article says that it doesn't hold responsibility for its publish as they are generally copied from other sources. All these are known to be opiniated and left-leaning. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
First, you're now discussing Scroll.in, and using that as justification to remove Newslaundry? Do you not see a problem with that? Second, when there is an active consensus documented at RSP, you need to get that changed before reverting. Third, even with Scroll we take a more nuanced approach, treating reader-submitted pieces differently from staff writers. I have reverted you once again. I see that you've already been warned about behavioral expectations in a contentious topic, which this falls under. Further reverts without any discussion are not a good look. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I won't engage in a lame edit war. No I accept that I was wrong on News Laundry I should have done more research. But what about the others? The discussion looks too point that they are unreliable and opiniated. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
You have to examine the others individually; they are not a monolith. I see no reason to believe The Print and The News Minute are not reliable; if you have evidence thereof, you should bring it up at RSN. Opinion pieces from Scroll.in are to be treated per WP:OPED, and I recall some concern about whether they label opinion pieces correctly; but that was four years ago. Regardless, if you want to establish site-wide practice for those sources, you have to start a discussion about them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. Won't get into it right now. I shall leave it here. Shaan SenguptaTalk 15:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Allegation of Edit War

Hi,

You recently left a message on my Talk page alleging that I seemed to be engaged in an Edit War on Page on Shivaji.

I have reverted only 2 edits in last 2 days in this page, so this does not run afoul of 3RR rule. These changes are also all backed up by solid academic sources.

You also made an untrue statement in you last but one revert saying "problems have been discussed on the talk page with this user and on several previous occasions when the same phrases were introduced; grammar is appalling.".

The changes in question are all new and have not been discussed anywhere else in Talk page. A such, this particular message is provably false.

You also have a demonstrated history of making rude / offensive statements, which have been pointed out to you. "grammar is appalling" almost sounds personal. If Grammar is an issue, workaround is for you to suggest copyedit, or to do it yourself.

You might be an administrator, but you do not own Wikipedia.

Would strongly suggest that you do due diligence and do not engage in offensive / rude behaviour. Nonentity683 (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring is more than just 3RR, as you would know if you had read EW. You have made at least six reverts in the last week (probably more, I haven't checked every last one of your edits). You also seem to believe you can ignore CONSENSUS. You need to stop forcing your preferred version into the article, and actually read both the talk page archives and the policy pages I have linked here and elsewhere. Please stop treating warnings as insults; they're meant to help you learn the ropes. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 : For nth time, you might want to stop making assumptions, and do due diligence. I have already gone through EW . I have not made more than 2 reverts on Shivaji in last 2 days, so this is not violation of 3RR, rules are rules.
"You have made at least six reverts in the last week (probably more, I haven't checked every last one of your edits)" - Well, then lets check and be certain. The comment you left in your last but one revert seems to suggest that you have not actually gone through changes and / or you do not understand why they were reverted. e.g. you said "these issues have been discussed with this user". These changes have not been discussed with me before.
"they're meant to help you learn the ropes" - You are not going to be able to onboard / welcomes new users on the platform with your insults and behaviour like this. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I also said those changes had been discussed on previous occasions, and I also reminded you for more than the first time that your changes required consensus. You chose to ignore both those parts of my summary (a summary which is terse by nature) and are splitting hairs over the first piece. You're not understanding nearly anything I'm saying, and I'm really not sure what you want from this conversation. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not splitting hairs. Your message in revert specifically said that those changes had been discussed before with me, which they have not. If we are not doing due diligence of actions we are taking and being mindful of what we are saying, whats the meaning of anything?
Point of this message is a reminder for both - doing due diligence, and not being rude. Nonentity683 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
You have, once again, misrepresented what I said. I'm stepping away from this; you still do not have consensus for your changes, and I will take further edit-warring to WP:AN3. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 : Would strongly suggest that you raise this right away. That will help validate your hypothesis that I have engaged in Edit Wars. Nonentity683 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance and Mentorship for Wikipedia Article Editing

Dear Vanamonde93,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is yamantakks, and I'm writing to you as a fellow Wikipedia contributor seeking guidance and mentorship. I've recently encountered some challenges with my edits on Wikipedia, and I believe your experience and expertise could provide me with valuable insights on how to improve my contributions.

I've noticed that you have a wealth of experience as a Wikipedia admin, and your dedication to maintaining the integrity of articles is evident. I've been encountering issues with my edits being reverted by other admins, which has led me to feel somewhat frustrated and discouraged. I am particularly reminded of a situation similar to one you raised in my edits on the topic of "Hindutva."

I'm reaching out to you because I believe that learning from an experienced Wikipedia admin like you could help me understand the nuances of proper article editing and writing. My intention is to contribute positively to the platform and provide accurate and well-sourced information.

Rather than asking you to view me in a particular light, I would like to request that you consider seeing me as a student eager to learn from your expertise. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I'm committed to learning the right way to contribute effectively. If you would be open to offering guidance or mentorship, I would greatly appreciate your support.

If you find the time to assist me, you can drop a message on my talk page, and I will be eagerly looking forward to your advice. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. I look forward to the possibility of learning from you and improving my editing skills. Your guidance would mean a lot to me and help me become a more valuable contributor to the Wikipedia community.

Warm regards,

yamantakks

Yamantakks (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yamantakks, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't have the time to engage in an extensive mentorship. However, if you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer them. If you want someone to mentor you specifically, I would suggest the adopt a user program; another place you can get assistance is the teahouse. In general, if you're interested in a given topic, the best way to improve an article about it is to read the best available sources, and summarize them in the article in your own words. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear @Vanamonde93,
I am really glad you replied.
Its no issue if you cant engage in extensive mentorship as I understand being an editor is a quite time taking work and thank you for your guidance, I may be droping a message on your talk page if I find any problem in which you can help me.
Regards
Yamantakks Yamantakks (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for deletion archive

Back in 2018, you closed the argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks considered the best and deleted the associated page. You did however state that you would be willing to restore it in userspace if one was interested in preserving the history. I and possibly a few others may be interested in beginning a new page very similar to this (that will likely have more than 15 entries), and having the original articles archive may be useful for entries and sources. If still possible, could this article be restored to userspace? NegativeMP1 04:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Here you go: User:NegativeMP1/Draft/List of video game soundtracks considered the best. But please remember the AfD reached a clear consensus that the page as it stood was inappropriate, and you will need substantially better sourcing before publishing this in mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willwill0415

I this these two might be related--Trade (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: I'm seeing a single post to Talk:Sanctioned Suicide that doesn't contain anything obvious; and the geolocation is very different. Are there other connections? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Steve Ditko

Hello. Thank you for all of the suggestions on how to further improve the article. I'm sorry that it wasn't up to par, as you mentioned looking forward to reviewing the article. I will look for ways to further improve and expand the article, including applying the changes you listed. I can let you know when I think it is ready for another review, if you would like. FlairTale (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@FlairTale: It's an interesting subject, so assuming I have the time I'd be glad to review it again. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene E. Stone III Stadium (Greenville, South Carolina)

Did you not feel my suggestion was a more sensible redirect? Govvy (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy: It was, but you were outnumbered, and prolonging the AfD to determine a better redirect target seems inefficient. I would say you could probably boldly retarget with an accompanying talk page explanation, and take it to RfD if you are challenged. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spear (Griffith novel)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spear (Griffith novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding that closing summary

Just wanted to say, the closing summary of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation was really well done. —siroχo 04:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Siroxo: I was rather expecting someone to come here and be upset about it, so it's very nice to see the opposite; thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spear (Griffith novel)

The article Spear (Griffith novel) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Spear (Griffith novel) and Talk:Spear (Griffith novel)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spear (Griffith novel)

The article Spear (Griffith novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spear (Griffith novel) for comments about the article, and Talk:Spear (Griffith novel)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorponok

We generally hold that articles on fictional subjects require substantive coverage that is more than plot detail is not correct. We require our articles to cover more per NOT#PLOT, but plot-only RS coverage does and has always contributed to notability.
While you're considering amending the closing statement, would you also consider redirecting it somewhere instead of outright deletion? The fact that the general discussion (which was indeed poor) failed to highlight this as an ATD (although Piotrus did mention it) doesn't prevent you from enacting it. Redirection of topics which have notability issues allow non-admins to improve and un-redirect if better sources are found, and is never appropriate for attack, copyvio, or promotional material... but none of those concerns apply here, do they? Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"plot-only RS coverage does and has always contributed to notability." It does not, and that is based on my having read and closed dozens to hundreds of AfDs on related subjects. Plot-related coverage is perfectly fine for works of fiction; not so much for in-universe fictional subjects. As for a redirect, it would not have been appropriate for me to do so given the lack of support, but there's nothing stopping you making a redirect now. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Since I was pinged. One one hand, I always support SOFTDELETE (and I do here), on the other, I appreciate Vanamonde considering the quality of arguments (and the article, the latter of which is clearly abysmal fancruft IMHO, like most Transformers articles). As for recovering the contents of the history, REFUND is possible to userspace, but really, I doubt anything would be of use. Fans have several fan wikis to chose from that are likely better than what we had anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Danny Lauter

Hi, thought I should point out that Danny Lauter was moved from draft to mainspace overnight. The new draft was created two days after your March AFD closed with a consensus to delete. The new creator JimmyJ484 has a quite similar SPA edit history to the previous creator account WalterKlaus3, and was created ten minutes before WalterKlaus3's last edit on 26 March, so a forgotten password seems unlikely.

Not sure what to do with this, as there's no archive of the article in the Wayback Machine, and draftifying didn't help with this earlier. Is it similar enough to the deleted article for a db-g4? The notability issues described in the AFD seem to still apply. Wikishovel (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: What a mess. When I deleted the page in March, it looked like this (I know you can't see that, just bookmarking); and the draft looks like this. They're entirely identical, with the same wording and the same sources. As such I would say it's definitely eligible for G4, and I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of the account that recreated it, because unless the editor found a Wikipedia mirror somewhere, I don't see how they could have created an identical page. I've tagged the page for G4, left a note to the reviewing admin (I don't usually delete outright under CSD) and salted the page. Would you be willing to file an SPI? I don't want to do the legwork, and already spent longer on this than I'd like. It could be just promotion of the player, but it could be something wider. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Done. Please feel free to comment and correct as needed, if you get the time. Wikishovel (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Danny Lauter

Hello Vanamonde93. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Danny Lauter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 does not apply to draftspace unless deleted under miscellany for deletion. Thank you. BangJan1999 15:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@BangJan1999: You know, you could have read my note on the talk page. I'm assuming you didn't. I'm well aware G4 doesn't usually apply to draftspace, but it does in this case, even by the letter of the policy narrowly construed. Please also read the discussion immediately above this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I had questions about the tagging of this draft and followed the breadcrumbs back to these talk page discussions. I don't like deleting G4s in Draft space but will do given your explanations. I know that other admins don't feel so strongly about this. But I'd rather not salt the page as he might become a notable college football player and this will only lead to drafts under alternative titles. I think it's best to keep future drafts under an obvious page title so they can be monitored. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I do see that you salted the main space page title which I think is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Liz: yes, I agree that salting the draftspace title isn't necessary (and I see it was tagged for salting, but that wasn't me), because where is a good-faith editor to go otherwise? But I don't think the accounts creating it right now are operating in good faith, I'm hoping the SPI can help us figure it out. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, Bishonen doesn't agree and must be a TPS because they gave the draft FULL protection. I guess if an editor wants to create a draft article on this person they can request lowering protection. Anyone want to place a bet now on whether he gets drafted to the NFL in 2026? Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Who am I to question the mighty 'zilla? It's well within discretion, I think. Bish tells me often that I'm too patient with idiots, and I can see that argument here. No bets from me though. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess I'm a pretty inefficient TPS, inasmuch I saw the section above but failed to notice that this section was on the same subject, so didn't read its discussion of salting/not salting, or I would have left the draft alone. I simply thought it a good idea to salt the draft page since it had been repeatedly recreated by bad players. It's not IMO a major effort for a good-faith editor to request unprotection if/when the subject's notability changes. That said, do feel free to unprotect right now, either of you, if you think it best. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC).
Having spent too much of my time considering this mess, I still don't have a strong position on protecting the draft, so I'll let it stand, Bish. Thank you for stopping by. But I won't object if Liz wants to undo it either; I think there's a fair point about future drafts at this title being flagged more readily given the logs. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Alfred Verdross

Thank you for your GAN review of Alfred Verdross. It was a pleasure working with you and I am happy because I can see that the review was useful and the article improved thanks to your suggestions. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: I'm glad you found it helpful; it was an interesting read, thank you for working on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again with Verdross, but perhaps you could help me again. For obvious reasons, I would very much like to include this image in the section about his relationship with Nazism, but also this image would be interesting, and this, and this. Apparently, however, there might be copyright issues and I have just opened this thread looking for help. But if copyright is outside your area of interest, don't even bother to reply, and thank you again for your help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Gitz6666: Unfortunately, I do not have the know how to deal with anything beyond basic copyright questions, and also lack the time to investigate. Posting for help was the right thing to do, we have many folks well-versed in copyright niceties. If you need to investigate yourself, I would start here: and generally the first step is identifying who the author of the photograph was, if/when they died, and when the photograph was published. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Castle in the Sky has just made it to GA-class, and I wanted to show my appreciation for your work on Howl's Moving Castle, which greatly inspired me when I was working on my very first GAN. Here's a colorful star to add to your collection! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Why thank you, @TechnoSquirrel69:. I had seen it listed for review and considered taking it, but decided it was a little too close to my interests. Nice work, glad to see it's a GA. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

John Ogilby - GA review

Thank you for having chosen John Ogilby from the GA backlog. I hope you find it interesting and not too much of a chore. Please be the one to set the pace and determine when and how you would like me to respond. Best regards. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you have done thus far, my apologies if it has turned out to be more than you had expected but on the positive side you have been exceptionally helpful and the article is already much improved. The position now is that I have some significant gaps to fill and turgid prose to rewrite, which will take at least a few days, perhaps a week. Rather than bother you with drip drip, I will ping you when I believe I've done them all. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I am most grateful for the time and effort you have spent on this (and no, they were not picky, they were essential. It wasn't a good article before – it is now.). My previous GAs were achieved cooperatively (e.g., especially Calendar (New Style) Act 1750) and doing an article solo this time has really highlighted the value of a group campaign.
In the course of researching it, I came across many wonderful "Did You Know?" candidates but none were sufficiently on-topic to make it into the article, so I think I'll give it a miss this time. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@JMF: My pleasure: it was an interesting read. I think there's a lot of potential for interesting hooks, and I encourage you to nominate it; the first atlas based on a survey, and the manuscript that survived a shipwreck, are what come to mind. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Ciro di Pers

Thanks so much for your revdelete there! Not sure how/why, but clearly I took my eye off that at the wrong moment – I'd have again undone the copyviocore removal if I'd noticed it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: My pleasure: and I see that more revdel was needed. As it happens I was looking at it because I noticed a declined G12; based on your stubifying, I'm wondering if you feel differently now? I'm still trying to get a feel for the line between deleting outright and deleting the entire revision history. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, good point! As I said in an earlier edit summary there, I think some content is OK. If I remember to, I'll go back and re-instate the non-infringing bits, or better still rewrite the page. I believe stubification is an appropriate response when (a) the topic is notable and (b) there's no good revision to go back to (as here); I'd have done that in preference to deletion after the statutory 7 days at WP:CP. There was a rewrite, by the way, but it was not usable and (after a few fumbles) I deleted it. No idea how to deal with that horde of IPs, all over dozens of articles like this one, some good edits, some definitely not. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Okay, thanks for clarifying. For contemporary subjects, I would be concerned about putting the burden of investigating notability on a person cleaning up copyright; but for a medieval subject with no conceivable promotional aspect, I think that's fair. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Seven years ago today

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thank you, nice to be remembered! Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Spear (Griffith novel)

On 4 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spear (Griffith novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nicola Griffith's novella Spear examines how the Roman conquest made Britain an ethnically diverse society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spear (Griffith novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Spear (Griffith novel)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive

The Reviewer Barnstar
We really appreciate that you reviewed several GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio revdels

Hi, thanks for dealing with the articles I tagged for cv-revdel! However, you seem to have accidentally hidden the edit summaries for Peter Cat Recording Co., instead of the revisions. If you could correct that, that would be great. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123: Thanks for checking back; should be fixed now. I don't think I've made that particular mis-click before....Vanamonde (Talk) 22:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, ty! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page.

Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself!

June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here.

July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here.

August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066.

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Two minor issues

Thanks for the review. I am not sure what is the second one. First one I presume is "And how would subjects be aligned with political views? It would also be nice if you could saw how they weren't aligned, but that's not mandatory.". Unfortunately, the sources cited don't go into relevant detail, although I think I could speculate - but that would be OR. Something to expand on in the future, I think, when/if this will be on the FA track? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The other is minor indeed; dropping "Nesselrode". I think you could take this to FAC, though I think the coverage is patchy in places; and there's a couple of sources you may wish to reconsider at that level (which I believe I flagged). Vanamonde (Talk) 13:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops

this was a misclick. Sorry about that..... 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Not to worry, happens to everyone. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI

" As an aside, I noticed there appear to be lists for individual years as well; I suggest discussing the best way to handle these also." Testing, testing... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollyoaks characters (1997). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that, but I'm inclined to remain uninvolved so I'm not investigating closely. I do also wonder at inclusion criteria, ie are they exhaustive or notable characters only or credited characters only or what. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_50"