User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 32

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. There has been removal of reliable sources and information from the People's Mujahedin of Iran article by Kazemita1. El_C suggested I seek the advice of another admin or forum, so I reported this to WP:AE, but it seems this is not the correct forum for this either. I'm trying to avoid taking this to ANI since I thought the whole point of the "Post-1978 Iranian politics" was to avoid "bogged down and extended noticeboard discussions." May I ask you to take a look at the evidence I provided at WP:AE? If you don't have time, can you recommend an administrator I can ask about this? Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch:, you are stretching to describe those incidents in negative terms. I picked your last diff, at random; you said Kazemita1 didn't provide an explanation for their removal; but they did. It's not an explanation I'm entirely happy with, but misrepresenting it doesn't support your case. At the moment, I'm going to take no action, though I may have to do so on the basis of further investigation of that talk page. Feel free to open a report at AN or ANI (AN is the preferred venue for enforcement of community sanctions) but please also remember that at some point the community is going to get sick of this whole affair, and is going to TBAN the lot of you unless you can demonstrate that your own conduct is unimpeachable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

About that last diff, someone asked El_C about Kazemita using his quote to remove information from the article, and El_C replied that he didn't remove that information, so Kazemita should answer for it. The problem is this reason by Kazemita does not explain why he removed this information. Likewise, if you look at the other diffs, you'll see that Kazemita provided an answer for each revert, but none of the answers actually address why he removed information from the article.

ie, if you look at the first diff, Kazemita says in his edit summary that "there is enough explanation about MEK related matter just prior to this", and then in the Talk page that it is a "piece which is not related to MEK", both false reasons since this is about the people behind a terrorist attack on the MEK in European soil. Through these "reasons" Kazemita has managed to impose his edits in the article. If that is really "stretching to describe those incidents in negative terms", then nevermind. Ypatch (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: There is a fine line between permissible disagreement over content and argumentation that is not compliant with policy; and another between accidentally bad communication and intentional stonewalling. I don't see the diffs you have linked here crossing either of those lines. Let me ask you something. The detail you have added was not about the MEK; it was about the background of a group that allegedly attacked the MEK. The attack is obviously relevant to the article. The level of detail that the MEK article needs to have about the group behind an attack on the MEK is, equally obviously, something that needs to be discussed on the talk page. So, are you willing to initiate a discussion in which you folks collectively determine how much detail needs to be included on that particular question? Because that's what needs to happen; instead that entire discussion has become about behavior, even though both El C and myself have told you to focus on content. Administrators do not make judgements on the substance of content issues unless it strays outside policy. There is a lot of disagreements that occur where both sides have a basis in policy. The disagreement over this sentence is one such; you and Kazemita need to sort it out between you. The admins are not going to take a side here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to take sides, I'm asking for someone to help assess if this is manipulating the article's restrictions to deliberately exclude sourced information. About the alleged attack on the MEK, we did discuss this with Kazemita on the article's talk page, where it was pointed out that Kazemita had added a lengthy amount of information about a divorce in the article, but refused to include one sentence that explains that the terrorist cell that attacked the MEK is run by "Quds Forces operatives". Through this sort of illogical objection (illogical by Kazemita's own criteria where he can add lots of text about a divorce but one sentence about who attacked the MEK is not ok) Kazemita has managed to impose his edits in the article. Kazemita has been warned, blocked, and sanctioned for edit warring in the MEK page, so this is hardly an innocent mistake. If using the article's restriction this way is ok, specially in an article with chronic edit warring, then by all means let it continue. Ypatch (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch:, your last question is of the "Have you stopped beating your wife" variety, and I'm not going to dignify it with an answer. I have told you, multiple times, that the specific diffs you've given me are not something I will take action on. I have also told you that I intend to review the conduct of all of the editors on that talk page, and also that your own conduct needs to improve. You've ignored my suggestions altogether, and continued to talk about Kazemita. This whataboutism is precisely the sort of behavior that necessitated discretionary sanctions in the first place; not editors misusing sources (these are more easily dealt with) but editors abandoning all pretence of wanting to edit collaboratively. I've had quite enough of it in this particular dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstood, your suggestion was for me to talk to Kazemita about this, and I did mention that I talked to Kazemita about this, and what I got in return was  that he can add this much about a divorce in the article, but a sentence about who attacked the MEK in Albania is too much information. Don't know what else I could have done to better my own conduct, but sorry to have pushed your patience anyways. Ypatch (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So are you saying multitasking is beyond the capability of ArbCom when related issues are presented? If the latter is the case, then perhaps separate noticeboards are an option - one for Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, and one for Arbitration/Requests/Amendment? Either way, it appears to be an exercise in futility to expect those with authority to amend the extent of their power - not unlike asking Congress to take a pay cut or enforce their own term limits - and as customary in authoritarian administrations, those with authority are content to expand it before they'll reduce it, all the while believing what they're doing is for the greater good while the population is crumbling around them. It is a major incentive killer. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: No, I'm saying something a lot simpler. ARBCOM proceedings are structured in a specific way. A case examines a certain locus of dispute, and the conduct of certain editors, and passes remedies related to it. The conduct of an admin who was not a party to the original case is a new locus of dispute, and cannot be handled as part of an appeal under the original case. That's all I'm saying. If you want ARBCOM to examine Awilley's conduct, you need a new case. I would not recommend filing such. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanamonde - but after 8 years of being hammered, I've reached the point where I've lost the incentive to do much of anything; thus, the semi-break. I may ask a question or make a brief comment here and there, but I won't be investing nearly as much time as I have in the past, which I'm sure will give a few editors cause to celebrate. As for the procedures you mentioned, well...I'm more about getting down to business and making things happen in lieu of getting bogged down in parliamentary procedures which suffer under the weight of the very bureaucracy that so many editors claim they deplore. My MO aligns more with that of the late Ross Perot and his "Snake in the bullpen" analogy. If you're not familiar with it, I have it enshrined in a yellow text box near the top of my UTP...it's the 2nd box above the single quote, Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision. 😊 Enjoy the weekend! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

How's Vedic Maths for taking a shot at GA? ∯WBG^converse 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Short answer; decent material, issues with the prose, both grammatical and with making content clear to an audience unfamiliar with the topic. Polish that, and you should be in good shape. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy-edited by GOCE and nominated. Will be glad to have you as the reviewer ....

By the way, Wikiindianguy seem to have some kind of COI with Rahul Roushan; eyes on OpIndia are welcome, at any case. ∯WBG^converse 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You previously handled a revdel request from me for BLP violations by an editor who is often a good contributor but has some sort of issue adhering to BLP policy, especially on birth names/dates from public records. The same editor is now reverting another editor to restore BLP violations, and adding information into edit summaries (see [1]) that was removed from the article under BLPPRIMARY. Could you please take a look and revdel the BLP violations? Technically the range would be 885880410 (page creation) to 928640330, plus whatever is happening right now with any edit-warring. Many thanks for taking a look. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, looks like Seraphimblade took care of it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I was offline, apologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been mulling over what you said about graduated actions vs lesser, more customized DS. Forgive me but I'm simply not seeing it that way. Based on my experiences, I'm of the mind that once sole discretion/unilaterally actions are eliminated, and uninvolved admins are the ones reviewing behavioral issues and not content in the cases brought before them, that's when we'll see the end of admin-hounding and POV creep that leads to unilateral actions for minor infractions that haven't reached the point of disruption, or that require a unilateral action to stop the behavior. I also believe we'll see fewer cases at AE, which will help with editor retention. We'll also see fewer 3-day-wonders showing-up to edit AP2 articles because the articles will have the diversity needed to achieve NPOV rather than leaning one way or the other. I also wish ArbCom would lose the ambiguity when crafting their remedies, especially the ones involving DS. I can understand generalities and accommodating some leeway in our regular PAGs, but DS need tightening, especially if ArbCom intends to throw the ball back into the admin court. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: The reason DS exists is that requiring consensus to enact sanctions makes policing difficult areas next to impossible. And while I appreciate your faith in humanity, I have my doubts that ending individual admin discretion will also end the phenomenon of 3-day POV warriors. I've seen those folks crop up in every article, regardless of its current POV, to push their pet theories. Maybe this makes me a cynic, but a very large number of our editors aren't interested in a neutral POV the way Wikipedia defines it; they're interested in their own definition of neutrality, which might have no basis in fact. Neutrality here has a very specific operational definition; and there's always going to be people who don't like it. Are you sure that that's what you're reading as POV-creep? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure of anything anymore these days, Vanamonde93. We may both be cynics, or perhaps cautious is a better word. One thing we can probably agree on is that we see things through a different lens - you, as an admin with great responsibility, and I, as an editor who is aware of being targeted...aka policed, supervised, stalked, hounded, rope - pick one. It has a chilling effect and tends to impede diversity, interfere with the consensus building process, and stifle the free expression of thoughts and ideas.

More problems arise when admin involvement becomes micromanagement of an entire topic area which then leads to HOUNDING and publicly threatening targeted editors in a published list for all to see; the more obvious side effects being that such a list emboldens the opposition, controls the article narrative and opens the door to POV creep, the latter of which I'm quite sure is happening. Others are aware of the repurcussions, including admins. Alliances and POV are the most difficult challenges to overcome under those circumstances, especially when it involves like-minded, long-established editors and admins. See Wikipedia:Supervised editing proposal, which failed, but is similar to what I alluded to above.

After WCNA2019, I was stuck indoors so I took the time to do a bit of reseach. I landed at the website Wikipedia20 and read "The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta". There was a link in that article to this one, "WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia". Following is a quote that is relevant to my concerns:

In light of the fact that individuals abuse the WP: system as a means of policing and censorship, while ignoring the policies that encourage collaboration, if Wikipedia were to require that debates occur on the terrain of facts, rather than in the adversarial terrains of “law” and “lawyerism,” that would go far in confronting the misogyny facilitated by WP:THREATENING2MEN and the hegemony of the asshole consensus.

Transforming policies would also serve as an epistemological rupture, through which Wikipedians would be forced to leave behind the various pretentions and habitus generated through its current toxic culture to reformulate what Wikipedia represents (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) — a space where facts are grounded in multiple points of view rather than censored when they deviate from a single monolithic one. In order to establish healthier habits and traditions, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to actively cultivate a climate of respect. Culture, Raymond Williams (1985) would be quick to point out, is derived from cultivation.

What timing, huh? 😎 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme:, your frustration is understandable, but I've given you several hints about this that you've ignored, so I'll be a little more blunt. I think you've gotten too close to this particular matter, and you need to let it drop. I don't always agree with Awilley's actions, but I've never seen him do anything that oversteps WP:INVOLVED (which, as you are aware, would be grounds for desysopping). I don't expect anyone to agree with a sanction imposed on them; but you need to be able to recognize, at the very least, that Awilley isn't INVOLVED here in any way. So please. There's many areas in which you do a lot of solid work; I think they will bring you more joy than going through this repeatedly. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't disturb you anymore - I just thought you knew that it was much bigger than Awilley or I, which I simply used as an example. I would argue against a desysopping. Have a good evening. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

  Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox

  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

  Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

  Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

  Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of states and territories of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hiya, remember Pahlevun's blanket removals (which often concerned political oppositions to the IRI government [2])? Well, he's back at it again [3]. Has been for some time actually, looking at his edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Are you referring to his edits at Democracy Party (Iran)? The trouble is, aside from a lack of discussion, those edits do seem to be mostly improvements (I haven't studied each and every diff). I can remind Pahlevun to be more careful with explaining stuff, but really that's about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, please look at his blanket removals in the previous months as well. Also, don't expect to get a better explanation than the obsecure "this is disputed" or "this isnt reliable". Not casting asperations, I just can't find and link examples right now since I am on my phone. Well, techncially I can, just a pain in the arse to do on phone. HistoryofIran (talk)

@HistoryofIran: In that case, I'll wait till you get to a proper connection. I want to make sure I've seen everything that is of concern. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are just some of those many blanket removals [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Note that in eight link, he removes a bunch of information because it is 'disputed', or rather seemingly because he doesn't agree with it. In Democracy Party (Iran), he removed lot of stuff that was deffo not soap-box. Considering his past of what seems to be IRI pov-pushing (as seen in the noticeboard), this is worrying. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I'll take a look, but do keep in mind that WP:DUE and WP:RS cut both ways; sourcing requirements are as stringent for material critical of the government as they are for material supporting it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

So, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

? --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not going to do anything more than warn Pahlevun about edit summaries. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding Juan Mera González. It was deleted due to WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Here is the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Mera González. Now he is playing in I-League (here). So, WP:NFOOTBALL criteria is met. Can I get the text back?  S A H A  17:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arnabsaha2212:: here you go: User:Arnabsaha2212/Juan Mera González. Please make sure evidence of notability is clearly presented in the article, with citations to reliable sources, before you move this to mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ok. thank you very much. :)  S A H A  09:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to bother you. Regarding your comment here, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. You pointed out something interesting; "in a situation where reliable sources are unsure as to what happened, describing that uncertainly isn't just not a problem, it is required, per WP:DUE.". Doesn't that mean, we should welcome more reliable sources on the subject (instead of removing them)? I was confused when you said Kazemita1's proposed version is "incomprehensible"? I was pro-adding more sources. I am thinking maybe you meant you are OK with adding the source and just need to rewrite to make it look better? I appreciate it if you elaborate.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: I'm saying that Barca is incorrect in their understanding of WP:DUE, specifically about situations where sources are uncertain about what happened. My problem with your additions was with the language used, which I found to be incomprehensible. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you. I was under the impression that that page had gone inactive; it's nice to recognize folks who work on our most visible content, so thanks for rejuvenating it. If you're interested in keeping score, too, there's a few others listed on my userpage. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Given this, I’m still not sure he’s grasped the problem at all. I have no doubt it’ll all end up at ANI at some point, but we shall see. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I don't think he has either. Absent any further errors since my second complaint, I don't see the point in escalating to ANI at the moment; but if the errors repeat, I don't think we've much option. More generally, I think this is just an example of a larger problem wherein the users of automated scripts don't realize that they are fallible and require manual review, and that the responsibility for reviewing their edits is with the user not the script author. Oh well. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I'm wondering if you might be interested in taking a looking at Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton and potentially guiding me through the FAC nomination process. I've successfully had the article promoted to GA-status, and it recently underwent a copy edit by a GOCE member. I would welcome any input you might have regarding further improving the article. Also, I'm in no hurry to make this happen—I started drafting the article more than two years ago—and can understand if you would prefer to help at another time. Thanks, ebbillings (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ebbillings: To be honest, legal matters in the US are far outside my comfort zone, and I don't think I'd be much help to you. The article looks to be in decent shape, but if there were glaring holes in the coverage I wouldn't know. Sorry I can't be more helpful. I would suggest looking into what FAs we have on legal topics, and then approaching the editors who nominated those. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article R. Carlos Nakai 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 Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've found a few small improvements to suggest; they're awaiting your attention. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers; I'll try to get to them later today, or perhaps tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The article R. Carlos Nakai you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:R. Carlos Nakai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde, we don't know each other terribly well but I just wanted to thank you for your service on ACE this year. Each year the committee faces some sticky decisions and the small amount of drama that resulted from the decisions you and the other commissioners made this year is a testament to your fine work and judgement. As a candidate I just wanted to thank you for the work you did in making this election possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: you are most welcome. I congratulate you on your opportunity to work on less soul-crushing matters than ARBCOM is habitually saddled with (and I mean that. Thanks for throwing your hat in the ring; you can now enjoy the absence of those responsibilities with a clean conscience). Vanamonde (Talk) 10:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I do have two strikes against myself, however... one, I don't really consider myself temperamentally suited. I generally manage to adult when it's needed, but I can absolutely count on the odd lapse of coolth, and we all know how well those go down when attached to a mop. Two, I'm barely even managing to be a reliably present NPPer these days, and real life is only going to ramp up over the next few years. Any commitment would be a shaky one. So - probably not a good idea ATM. - Reminds me I should see to some content creation though... one does tend to lose sight of why we are here ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Thanks for a frank assessment of yourself. If I may; I looked through your contributions a fair bit before offering, and I didn't find any red flags; and I'd add that a self-awareness about your temperement is often more important than an outward calm. Also, with respect to time; being an admin doesn't have to come with an enormously expanded workload. There have been weeks where I've taken hundreds of admin actions; there have been weeks where I've taken none, but still done helpful stuff as an admin. The types of work you do don't have to change; just the buttons you have to do them with. Keep the possibility in mind, if you would. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi VNM, If you can please see if you can help to improve the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The article is steadily growong but so are disputes on the talk page. Some help by experienced editors might be helpful to bring the article to WP:NPOV. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to look in, but have been busy with several other things both on-wiki and off. I'll do my best to rework some of the worst bits, but I can't make promises. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I was unaware it had been nominated again; thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, you are welcome. This is expected of a gnome  . Good work on the article, the ITN credits are well deserved. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Since, you had brought Narendra Modi to GA, any ideas about Bibliography of Narendra Modi? Notable, any? ∯WBG^converse 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh I've been aware of that one. It's not notable in the usual sense, no; but list articles are weird; there's several other similar bibliographies, IIRC. I don't think it's a meaningful article, but haven't the patience to deal with AfD for such a page. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a bit weird. I was under the impression that bibliography articles were lists of works by the person, not on the person. Wouldn't we need criteria for inclusion if the list was of works on the person? BTW, at the least, the title is misleading.--regentspark (comment) 14:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a meaningful article, but haven't the patience to deal with AfD for such a page. - Same, at my end :-) ∯WBG^converse 09:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

that Tulsi Pujan Diwas needs a 30/500 protection at the redirected state, to stop SPAs? ∯WBG^converse 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If there's another revert, yes. As it is, the ECP police will not like it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Apologies for the random message. I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC? The topic is definitely different from your normal activity, but I wanted to have an experienced FAC reviewer look through it after some concerns were recently raised about the nomination. I have a lot of respect for your work on the Ursula K. Le Guin and The Left Hand of Darkness articles. Again, apologies for the message. Just trying to reach out to different editors to get some perspective and hopefully grow as an editor. Have a great end of your year! Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I'm stretched ridiculously thin at the moment, and much as I'd like to say "I'll do my best", I really don't think it's going to happen, sorry...Vanamonde (Talk) 04:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the very fast response, and I appreciate your honesty. Good luck with everything keeping you busy at the moment! Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

∯WBG^converse 14:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Just to let you know that I have mentioned you in my response. regards.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DBigXray --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is over. You missed it --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been travelling (and will be again, soon). I saw it on my phone, but didn't have the time to say anything intelligible. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Funny, as it may sound, someone tried to WP:NOTHERE me today.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of that. As I've said before, since I'm involved with writing this article, I'm not going to comment on anyone's behavior at the moment, unless it's at an Admin noticeboard. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kmoksha (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to report the edit war of User:Alex-h against me and another user, he is trying to inserting POVish and detailed material into the article. While they needs to discuss with users who are against it. he already was warned too.I wonder if you take a look.—Saff V. (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: If there's just edit-warring going on, WP:ANEW is the place to go. If it's more complicated, I will try to take a look, but I'm quite busy these days, so it may take a while. El_C might be better placed to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, hope you're well! I was wondering if you could provide some advice. You've been quite involved in political articles so would really appreciate it. I've expanded Dehenna Davison, an article on a British MP. A user who is implying that they are the person described in the article has edited it recently. [[11]]. I've provided them a welcome message as well as the COI information on their userpage. They have added the date of birth which is not found in any secondary source and have implied that they would provide information to support this if asked, is there any way that they could provide information on this without violating our policies? Cowlibob (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: A user with a COI should usually not be editing an article at all, as you know. A birthdate is a relatively innocuous piece of information, but also we wouldn't add the birthdate to a BLP without a reliable source; so even if the person knows it to be true, they still ought to provide a source. If they're really upset about it and can't find a source, WP:OTRS is probably the way to go. This is particularly true if the birthdate is contentious for some reason (eligibility for something or other, parentage, or some other circumstance I cannot think of). Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)