User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Vanamonde93. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Hello - I think your closing of this AfD was really poorly done: you should have at least told users participating that the cases for merging were not made out and explained that and relisted it for another week. WP:ATD requires a merge or a redirect if it's available, and it was clear that there was at least the possibility of that happening. Can you please restore the article so we can merge it properly? At the very least the history needs to be kept and that was made clear from the AfD - so the offer to userfy isn't sufficient for that purpose because it won't restore the history. Deus et lex (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Deus et lex, it's up to participating users to substantiate their argument; when poor arguments lead to a lack of consensus, relisting makes sense, but consensus here was clear. There's no need to preserve the history when the article has been deleted; if someone wants to merge something, a userspace copy is perfectly fine, because it's quite possible to preserve history when userfying or draftifying. If you want a userspace copy, let me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't clear. None of the users rebutted the fact there was an alternative to deletion. You should have relisted it for a week. I would really like the history back so I'd like you to put it back, please. Deus et lex (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deus et lex: Here you go: User:Deus et lex/Transperth fare zone. WP:ATD is often mis-cited in deletion discussions by those wishing to avoid deletion at all costs. Merging is appropriate only when the content is encyclopedic, and there were convincing arguments that it wasn't necessary. Feel free to do as you please with the userspace draft, but copying it wholesale into a different article requires prior consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Deus et lex (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Whiteguru. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Emanuel Lotem, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A Hebrew translation of A Man of the People — no, not that one! What can I say? Chinua Achebe had the gift. El_C 12:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I enjoyed both those titles! Only read them once each thus far, but might revisit them when I have a moment. It was my first Achebe, as I recall. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Just started it this morning and already I'm half-way done, so it's proving to be quite the speedrun (granted, it isn't a lengthy book). Funny story about the next book on the cue, C. J. Cherryh's Hestia. In Hebrew, Hestia has identical spelling as "The Perversion," and because my memory is terrible, a couple of times through the years, I'd be looking at the book's cover and I'd be thinking: 'why is she kink-shaming furries, in 1979? That's super-weird' But then, once I'd look in the inside cover (which has the title in English), I'd be, like, 'right, the planet!' El_C 06:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, following up on a previous conversation; I took a shot at finding sources about Emanuel Lotem today, thinking it would be a fun short project; but I'm struggling to find anything usable. I was wondering if you knew of anything I'd missed: I don't speak a word of Hebrew, so it's quite probable I haven't searched exhaustively. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing beyond what I've read on his Hebrew wiki page and just having tons of his translations in my own library. In my eyes, he's most well known for translating the LoTR series (later also The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and more), greatly modernizing the rather archaic translation of The Hobbit, but that's my own OR impression. El_C 03:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are the ones I've seen mentioned, too, but I can't seem to find secondary-source coverage...oh well. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Emanuel Lotem, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Whiteguru (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: I do apologize; it was listed in the section of my sandbox where I keep my userspace drafts, but I screwed up the syntax and dumped in mainspace instead. Thanks for moving it. As it happens, I've G7'd the draft myself, after my conversation with El_C above and my inability to find refs. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have just moved Prep4 into the queue. Sorry if I have messed something up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: that's okay, I was just about to start checking it...is there a different way you'd like me to mark preps I'm checking? Given how low DYK is on admins, I think we ought to be really careful with respect to duplicating effort. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It did not have the inuse flag in place when I looked at it prior to moving it. Basically, I move the set and then check it in order to avoid the wasted effort that would be involved if two admins were checking it at the same time. Mostly, nobody else is around at this time of day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough: I suppose I could do that. I've historically preferred to check before moving, just in case I'm interrupted. I've started on Prep 5, though, so if it's okay with you I'll finish it before moving. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Like cwm, I generally move, then check, to prevent wasted effort. My general strategy to lessen the chance of missing an issue because I got distracted and forgot to circle back is, instead of checking in order, to first check those I know are more likely to have issues -- anything both nominated and reviewed by editors inexperienced at DYK, I do immediately. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have a picture of Edgewater Station as of after 2015? JaydienMS (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@JaydienMS:, I'm wondering if you meant to contact someone else; I've never taken a picture of Edgewater station, as far as I'm aware. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, since you closed the AfD debate: Please tell me, what do you think should happen with Neuburg siliceous earth, now that Wellheim Formation is an article? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@ΟΥΤΙΣ:, you should merge the content to the place that seems best, and if anyone disagrees with the target you chose, discuss it with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I won't do this myself: It would be a first for me and there are problems with my account on another language Wiki, currently.
Would you do it, please? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC) -- self-censoring my last statement for more discretion --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I don't have the time, and it's not my area of interest. Feel free to ask someone else from the geology wikiproject, or from the deletion discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For a likely successful deescalation. GRuban (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

GRuban Thanks...I really hope it ends up being, in fact, a deescalation. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Want to agree. As I mentioned there, I'd written up something similar. Only reason I didn't post it was due to an edit conflict which caused me to see yours. Your proposal 3 was better written than what I had--both shorter and less wiki-lawyerable. I also think your argument at DRV was probably the best about the underlying issue (rather than the CfD itself) anyone has made. I do a lot of technical writing as part of my job and I'm always impressed when someone is that much better at it than I am. (As a side note, BHG is one of the *very* best here at such things when she stays on point--part of why I'd love to keep her here if we can without trashing WP:CIVIL.). Hobit (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hobit: Thanks for this, and sorry that I missed your message before. I really appreciate the kind words; participating in such discussions is often a thankless task, so it's nice knowing at least some people are appreciative. I'm certainly appreciative of the work BHG does, my proposal notwithstanding. Even during the portals case, which I followed from a distance, I couldn't help noticing how often she was right about the substance, even if she was doing a poor job of conducting herself. And regretfully that's not uncommon among our experienced contributors, is it? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say a lot of our best contributors are quite good at such things. But they stay behind the scenes and don't attract much attention. But otherwise agree with you 100%. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hobit: I certainly agree; perhaps I ought to have said there's a smallish number of very visible editors who do the same thing among our many excellent long-term contributors. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to say that the conductor used the word "Fan" in German, where it would normally not be applied to a stage director, but pop stars and sport heroes. - Just explaining, - perhaps there's no way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: that's an interesting linguistic nuance (the usage is broader in English), but I don't know that there's a good way to convey it without a source commenting on its significance. When I saw the quotes, I just assumed you were using them as a matter of course; I didn't even realize she was speaking German at the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What I said, just explaining. - She's extraordinary, determined to learn Czech and Russian also to not conduct an opera without understanding what the characters say, - same interview. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kalyan Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Provinces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I've started to provide evidence at the arbitration and I will be quoting you extensively. If anytime you feel that I quoted you in a misleading way, please let me know. I'm going through a lot of diffs, mistakes can happen, and it is not my intention to misquote you.VR _talk 01:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I will do my best. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Also you said The "warnings" to SB do not rise to the same level, I believe, though there may be other talk page examples I have missed, I want to politely point out this warning where you said Stefka, I'm very close to topic-banning you solely for that comment.VR _talk 02:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've decided, based on some reflection, to stick to formal warnings, rather than instances of me giving forceful reminders on the talk page; there are probably very many of those. Feel free to add them to your own evidence. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Barkeep asked a question where I think your insight will be incredibly useful. I, of course, have lots to say, but I think the comments of uninvolved parties like yourself will be more valuable. And apologies if this message is bothersome, I only posted it because the workshop closes in 4 days.VR _talk 14:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the note, I do intend to participate. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I added specific correct date of when the term Hindutva was coined and then promoted as per other Wikipedia page reference. This provides accurate detail. "Savarkar joined the Hindu Mahasabha and popularized the term Hindutva (Hinduness),[4] previously coined by Chandranath Basu,[5] to create a collective "Hindu" identity as an essence of Bharat (India)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar.

How is it confusing? Its important detail.

Hrishirise, my talk page isn't the place to discuss this; Talk:Hindutva is; but briefly, what you added was not a real sentence (what does "to create a collective "Hindu" identity as an essence of Bharat (India)"" even mean?) and it's also adding extraneous detail; his membership in the Hindu Mahasabha isn't necessary for the definition of Hindutva. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry not sure which page to discuss or talk as per your comment. The Hindutva page has become a political battle ground to define a politically biased meaning. The origin of Hindutva word needs to be stated. There is a misconception that Hindutva was coined by Savarkar. Also, what do you mean by not "real statement", its picked up from Veer Savarkars wikipedia page with reference.

If edits to the page "Hindutva" are challenged, they need to be discussed at Talk:Hindutva. Surely that's not too complicated to ask? Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siren Visual (2nd nomination), however I disagree that your close is an accurate representation of the consensus. If you didn't notice, I provided multiple sources that neither you nor HighKing ever addressed. In addition, the sources I also provided a rational for several of the other sources I provided earlier in the AfD that you nor HighKing never disagreed with later on. Link20XX (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Link20XX: HighKing did in fact engage with most of your sources. You and HighKing simply had differing opinions on them, which is fine, but you didn't do enough to rebut his arguments. It's also worth noting that one of the "keep" !votes quite obviously supports merging and redirecting over keeping. I suggest you add a summary of this content to the list article, and keep an eye out for further sources, which may allow for recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, The Fandom Post looks pretty iffy as a source for proving notability. The discussion linked to was years ago and didn't go into the question of proving notability. It might be good enough for filling in noncontroversial details or for attributed opinion, but I'd argue it isn't enough to help prove notability. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: In addition to what I outlined in the AfD, the website has quite a bit of WP:USEBYOTHERS from Anime News Network, which is considered reliable (1, 2, 3 for 3 instances, though there are many more). In addition, references to it are used in Naruto Uzumaki and Allen Walker, both of which are featured articles, which have a very high sourcing standard. Link20XX (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Link20XX, again, I'm not arguing that it can't be used in an article. I'm arguing that it probably isn't enough to help prove notability, which is a higher standard. Not every generally-reliable source is enough to prove notability. For instance, local newspapers and industry media are generally reliable, but three stories in local press or in industry media isn't enough to prove notability. At AfD, proving notability is almost always the issue. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware that AfD focuses on notability, however I am at a loss as to why you don't think the website is reliable enough for couting towards notability after everything I have shown. Link20XX (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's move this to your user talk. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Valereee, I appreciate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIG Television Awards (2nd nomination), where you wrote, "Argument to redirect is weakened by the absence of any mention at the proposed target", the argument was not for a redirect. The argument was for a merge to Reliance Broadcast Network. Your close of "delete" makes a merge not possible. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cunard: True, I neglected to mention that in my closure. However, you did not demonstrate the existence of merge-worthy content either; and other editors at the AfD implied that all reliable sources do is to name check these awards. When there is not substantive merge-worthy content, a merge and a redirect are functionally equivalent. As such I don't see what other reasonable outcome the AfD could have had. I'll also note that the proposed target is a stub with two short paragraphs; a substantial merger may also create a due-weight problem (I say may because this is something for consensus to determine, but you didn't really address the feasibility of a merger either). Vanamonde (Talk) 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I would have preferred that you had added this as a comment to the AfD as a participant instead of as a post-close comment from a closer so that I would have had a chance to address the concerns you raised. I added two sentences about BIG Television Awards to Reliance Broadcast Network sourced to this article. This addresses your statement that "Argument to redirect is weakened by the absence of any mention at the proposed target". Would you revise your close to "redirect" instead of "delete" so that the article history is available? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cunard: Well, I wasn't really evaluating all the available sources, just the arguments presented and the articles referenced. I really don't see the need to restore the history. Approximately two-thirds will stay deleted as a copyright violation in any case. The rest of the history contains no sourced content that you haven't covered already. You could simply create the redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The copyright violations were revision deleted in August 2013, so there are eight years of non-copyright-violating history after that. I am asking you to restore the article history under a redirect so that I and any other interested editors can evaluate the content and the article's content, history, and sources for ourselves to determine whether there is anything more to merge. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, I support preserving an article's history so that the content is available to non-admin editors for use in a merge or in a recreated article if more sources are found in the future. If you decline to restore the article's history, would you object if I asked at WP:REFUND for restoration of the history to mainspace under a redirect (my first preference) or to draftspace (my second preference)? Cunard (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cunard, your eight years of history represents 19 revisions, and most edits in that history are utterly trivial. If you still want the history, fine, I'll undelete it; the issue isn't worth the time another editor would have to spend on this at WP:REFUND. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I would appreciate an undeletion so I can check for myself what is available in the history. The article history might contain no content or sources that can be used for a merge, but it's still useful to be able to have it available just in case there is something useful. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting the history. The deleted article had this source from India Infoline, which I used to add more information about the award to Reliance Broadcast Network. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanmonde93: You recently deleted Strategic realism per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic realism, basing your rationale largely upon the notion that " substantiveness of the provided sources has not been demonstrated". However, in my !vote, I did demonstrate the substantiveness of the sources, specifically in the form of page numbers, such as (bold emphasis mine):

• Jackson, R.H.; Sørensen, G. (2016). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford University Press. pp. 72–75
• Khanna, V.N. International Relations, 6E. Vikas Publishing House. pp. 22–23
• Aneek, C. (2010). International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. Pearson. pp. 19–20
• Vennesson, Pascal (February 16, 2017). "Is strategic studies narrow? Critical security and the misunderstood scope of strategy". Journal of Strategic Studies. Informa UK Limited. 40 (3): 358–391.

Furthermore, nobody except the nominator addressed the sources, and the nominator did not address the substantiveness of them at all. All other users appeared to base notability upon the state of the article, rather than available reliable sources, and none came back to the discussion to provide input about the new sources provided. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon available sources, not the state of sourcing in articles.

Therefore, requesting undeletion and a relisting of the AfD discussion, so other users can have an opportunity to assess the sources I presented there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000:, with respect, providing page numbers says little to nothing about substantiveness. Furthermore, until evidence of substantive (and reliable etc) sourcing has been provided, those arguing to "delete" don't need to engage with the sources, because that would be asking them to prove a negative. Had this been a borderline closure I might have considered relisting, but it really wasn't. Please also note I wasn't even giving any weight to the claim that your sources were fringe. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I join Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) in asking you to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic realism. I disagree that "delete" editors were being asked "to prove a negative". Northamerica1000 provided a list of sources. The "delete" editors could have shown that the sources were insufficient by explaining how the sources Northamerica1000 listed did not provide substantial coverage. The "delete" editors did not do that. The sources Northamerica1000 found do provide substantial coverage. Here are three sources Northamerica1000 provided along with quotes from the sources that demonstrate that the sources discuss strategic realism in substantial detail:

1. Jackson, Robert H.; Sørensen, Georg (2016). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (6 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0-19-870755-4. Retrieved 2021-09-01.

   The book notes: "In this section, we shall examine strategic realism, which is exemplified by the thought of Thomas Schelling (1980, 1996). ... Strategic realism focuses centrally on foreign-policy decision making. When state leaders confront basic diplomatic and military issues, they are obliged to think strategically—i.e., instrumentally—if they hope to be successful. ... This is a good example of strategic realism which basically concerns how to employ power intelligently in order to get our military adversary to do what we desire and, more importantly, to avoid doing what we fear. According to strategic realism, 'choosing between extremes' is foolish and reckless and is thus ... ... Strategic realism thus presupposes values and carries normative implications. Unlike classical realism, however, it does not examine them or explore them. ..."

2. Khanna, V.N. International Relations, 6E. Vikas Publishing. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-93-5338-632-0. Retrieved August 25, 2021.

   The book has a six-paragraph section titled "Thomas Schelling: Strategic Realism". The book notes: "Strategic realism, like neo-realism, is a product of the behavioural revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Many contemporary realists seek to provide an empirical analysis of world politics. But they avoid normative analysis of international politics because that is considered subject, and thus, unscientific. Strategic realism is associated with the name of Thomas Schelling who propagated his views in 1980. Schelling's strategic realism focuses its attention on foreign policy-decision making. ... Strategic realists are basically concerned with how to employ power intelligently in order to get the adversary to do what we desire and, more importantly, to avoid doing what we fear."

3. Chatterjee, Aneek (2010). International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. Delhi: Longman. ISBN 978-81-317-3375-2. Retrieved 2021-09-01.

   The book notes: "Thomas Schelling, for example, came up with a newer version of realism, later identified as strategic realism. This could be considered as a part of neo-realism, which wanted to [explanation] ... Keeping the normative aspects of earlier forms of realism in the background, strategic realism tends to emphasize on empirical analytical tools for strategic thoughts. Thomas Schelling, the chief exponent of strategic realism, is well aware about the crisis-ridden contemporary world. ... While the focal point of strategic realism is the art of diplomacy and prudent strategies, neo-realism is more concerned with [explanation]. ... Schelling's strategic realism has come under attack from constructivists. No strategy, however prudent, can be free from normative values."

Cunard (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Furthermore, none of the delete !voters in the discussion stated whether or not they engaged in source searches, which leaves the notion open that those users may have based topic notability upon the state of the article at the time, rather than existent sources. The substantiveness of the sources was demonstrated, with direct links to pages in the books and other sources. I think you're applying too much weight to simple delete !votes and requiring any keep !voters to perform twenty times the work, which seems to include having to go into in depth analysis of each source, as Cunard has done above. Sometimes users complain about Cunard doing so, stating that they are "bludgeoning" discussions. So which way should it be done? Provide extremely detailed information about each source and risk being scolded, or provide sources such as I did in the discussion, and then they are given no weight. Typically in AfD discussions, the assertion that a topic meets notability guidelines and links to the sources is sufficient. Furthermore, the nomination is based upon the notion that the article serves no purpose, and that the topic "is not a prominent school of realism". However, Wikipedia notability guidelines do not exclude non-prominent schools of realism. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000 and Cunard: I take your point about !voters often scolding Cunard for posting detail (though I do not recall having complained about it myself). I have relisted the discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Silicon Valley 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 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In the open Iranian politics arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Juan Guaidó 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 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your close on this discussion. I believe there was a clear consensus that the article was WP:Original synthesis and that it should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

4meter4 There was most certainly not consensus for deletion in that discussion. There were substantive arguments that the broader topic had coverage in reliable sources. Nobody made the argument that an appropriately renamed article would still violate SYNTH. Furthermore, a lack of coherence in the source material is rarely an argument for deletion: even if that were the case, deletion would not be supported; the appropriate course of action would be splitting and/or merging the content appropriately. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The reason why we can't settle on a title is because the article itself is an amalgamation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Multiple editors expressed concerns that this was a hoax for this reason, and your close did not address those valid issues. Essentially ruling that a valid definable topic is there somewhere (as yet unclear), is a way of skirting the fundamental issue of SYNTH. At the very least, this should be draftified and not allowed to remain in main space until a clear definable topic is there and the article fleshed out to the point where SYNTH and OR are no longer an issue.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

4meter4, the argument that this content would constitute inappropriate synthesis under any title was not made at the AfD. A closer's role is to evaluate the arguments presented, not the sources and the content. If talk page discussions fail to establish a clearly defined topic, such an argument would be more persuasive, but at the moment, you're the only one saying what you're saying. If you want to take this to DRV, feel free, but I'd recommend elaborating your concerns on the talk page instead. I will not be changing the outcome of the discussion, sorry. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood, I will be taking this to DRV. For my own part, I didn't think I needed to make a case that it was inappropriate synthesis under any title, because that seemed obvious to me. An original synthesis is still original synthesis no matter what we title it because of how its using the source material. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Please note that DRV is for assessing my closure, not for rehashing the entire discussion. If there's reasons for deletion that weren't presented at AfD, the place for that would be a new AfD (after the appropriate amount of time has passed), not DRV. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood.4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way I can get a copy of that article to copy onto my own computer for personal use? Bkatcher (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bkatcher: There was an external list provided at the AfD; is there anything in our article that you wanted that that doesn't have? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A list of veterans by conflict, by branch of service, links to each of their wikipedia articles, names of the oldest and youngest living recipients, names of recipients still on active duty, and names of recipients who went on to become generals, which are not provided by the external link. Sorry, the deletion kind of caught me flat footed, I would have copied the article, but I was out of town. Bkatcher (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Bkatcher here you go. If you don't need it on-wiki, feel free to tag it for speedy deletion once you're done. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Bkatcher (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Vanamonde93, Thank you for reverting my edit on Navjot Singh Sidhu, I am new to Wikipedia so I am still learning how things are supposed to be. I'll try to be more mindful of the information I add to articles in the future :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicSleep (talk • contribs)

@SonicSleep: No problem, happy editing. Feel free to stop by here with any questions you may have. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jyotirao Phule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Satara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Vandamonde. I just noticed this AfD that you closed almost a week ago. WP:NSOLDIER that was frequently referred to in that discussion was deprecated in February. The arguments for Keep based on it seem to be even more misplaced than your close would therefore have indicated. I'm not asking for any reconsideration but do you think that modifying your close might be appropriate? Asking for a status RfC seems, at the very least, redundant. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thanks for pointing out that discussion to me; I was phenomenally busy in RL at that point, and wasn't aware of it! I think you've got the dates mixed up, though, the linked AfD was from 2020, not 2021 (it took me a moment to realize why it didn't feel familiar...). As such I don't really think I should be amending the closure, though of course the same arguments would be treated slightly differently at a new AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are correct, of course. Truly, 2020 never ends... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, I still learned something. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

After some research, I've gone ahead and renominated it. We'll see if the arguments are repeated, I guess. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm interested in seeing how it goes. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Vanamonde93

First, maybe I should thank you for encouraging a more thorough discussion before deleting articles that were published for more than a decade.

Second, maybe I should mention that I do not know how wikipedia back-office decisions work.

I happen to be the inventor of Glasnost the Game which was produced in Cyprus (not Greece) in the early 90s in 4,000 copies. I was surprised to see that after more than 10 years, the page was deleted. But more surprised I was to read the arguments upon which the decision was grounded. For example, one said that only 100 copies were produced, when the Game's page says explicitly that ONLY 100 ORIGINALS/PROTOTYPES were still available. Another said that newspapers cannot be verified, hey are in Greek (one was in English) and that they were probably hoax, or that it was probably self promotion and that the inventor contacted the newspapers and not the other way around!

A different person asked why this article did not appear in the Greek wikipedia. A surprising question given the fact that the inventor happens to be of Greek origin but he lived in Germany when the game was invented and subsequently in the US. It also makes no sense to me; it is like saying that national data must first be published nationally before they would be "eligible" for the US wikipedia!

Someone else also said: "Also since this game originates in Greek-speaking Cypress" This is inaccurate. If this person spend a moment to read the article, it said that the inventors were in Germany and in the US. And there is no country called Cypress! Not to mention that the term Greek-speaking [country] sounds politically loaded as there is only one country called Cyprus and like in any other country in the world, people speak many languages.

I use wikipedia almost everyday because I always believed it was truly based on crowdsourcing and serious verification.

I am not the one who created that page, and I know very little of how wikipedia works. But I would appreciate a little bit more seriousness and respect, along with your advice and/or initiative to restore the page. The fact that the Glasnost the Game page was deleted after another surprising deletion of a page (Yiannis Laouris) that my followers created almost 20 years ago sounds like no coincidence and suspicious. It looks as if someone is trying first to delete the page of me, and subsequently other pages where my name appears. That much for transparency and democratisation in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiannislaouris (talk • contribs)

@Yiannislaouris: To be quite honest, I'm a little surprised you're reaching out to me, given that as far as I can see I haven't had anything to do with the deletion of either of these pages besides relisting a discussion once. Both relevant discussions ([1], [2]) were not very well attended, but consensus was nonetheless quite clear that the subjects of those articles were not notable. I'm not seeing any evidence that there was a campaign to purge your work from Wikipedia; all articles need to meet our basic standard of notability. You may, if you wish, create a draft of the article with the relevant sources, and submit it to the articles for creation process, but I would not recommend doing so, because we strongly discourage people from writing about themselves, or about topics where they have a strong conflict of interest. The fact that your "followers" created the page for Glasnost The Game did not help it's case. Please read through the links I've placed here, which explain in more detail the policies and guidelines I have referred to. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Passengerpigeon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to the page Statue of Unity because it appeared to have removed negative or disparaging information that was correctly sourced. Please note that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and must cover controversies relating to particular topics as well as positive aspects; removal of accurate negative information from an article could be seen as POV pushing. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The trouble wasn't the sourcing, as you're well aware; but if you think it's helpful to leave admins templated level-1 warnings, by all means, go ahead. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, there are a few articles that I feel do not comply with W:NCORP . Some were clearly written by someone associated with the company for publicity reasons. However I am unsure about how to start the discussion process to have them considered for deletion.. These for instance:
The_PuLi_Hotel_and_Spa
The_Garden_Hotel,_Guangzhou
Spence_Diamonds
Excel_Communications
Suggestions? Thank you.
Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gentleman wiki: Hi. There's a guide to doing the process manually at WP:AFDHOWTO, and a much simpler process that may be used after enabling Twinkle in your preferences (see inset at the same link). If I were less busy at the moment I would try to evaluate the pages myself, but I don't have the time. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93 -- I'm just checking in with volunteers for the WiG Good Article Editathon (starting tomorrow!). Are you still set to help out with the 20-minute article assessments? You can watchlist the requests page here. Basic plan: as requests come in, volunteers will mark the request as "in progress," leave their comments on the talk page of the article, then mark the request as "done". We'll be aiming to identify any major issues in articles and suggest priorities for the editor to work on. If you have any questions/concerns, just let me know. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alanna; yes, still happy to! Thanks for the reminder though, I'll watchlist that page, and do what I can with reviews. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Fab! Thank you. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)