User talk:Vanamonde93

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Dating for bot: old message. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley rape allegations

I addressed your second batch of concerns regarding the Tawana Brawley rape allegations article.--MagicatthemovieS

Dating for bot: old message. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.

Hi Vanamode. Thank you for your advice. I will try my best to made edits that doesn't look like a promotion after this. Maybe, it is my fault that didn't ready policy before making edits. My actual intention is to serve my knowledge about a topic. And I also want to give info about my country and state. I also doesn't have any business link with my edits.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islam Al-Behairy (talk • contribs)

@Islam Al-Behairy: You're welcome. Please remember that promotional editing is different from editing with a conflict of interest. You've made it clear that you have no conflict of interest here, but your edits may still be promotional. For instance, even though I am not from Malaysia, it would be promotional editing if I added the sentence "Malaysia is the best tourist destination in the World" to the page about the country. You need to make sure that all the content you add meets our policies on verifiability and neutrality, and you'll be okay. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meaningful vote

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meaningful vote. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI tagging

Quick follow up to your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hasan Okarvi. There are two main reasons why an account might not be tagged. Master accounts are not tagged if they are only being blocked temporarily. For puppet accounts tagging is the default, but is sometimes not done in order to deny recognition. Usually this is done in long term abuse cases where the editor in question has disruptively interacted with investigation process in some way. I hope that clears things up a bit, but if you're ever in doubt, by all means leave the matter to the SPI clerks. That is our job after all. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: That makes sense, thanks for clearing it up! Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A Query on Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Hi there, I see that you had requested page protection for Atal Bihari Vajpayee page, I thank you for your action but I have a query... I See that you are yourself an Administrator here so I Am unable to understand why you did not protect the page yourself? , Are Admins also required to go through RFPP Request? I am still ignorant of some functioning of Wikipedia and your answer will be helpful.. thank you. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: You are correct, I am an administrator, and I could have protected the page myself. The reason I didn't is that I have contributed content on very closely related topics, and I am therefore WP:INVOLVED on this page, so I will not use my tools on that page except to stop the most egregious disruption. Vanamonde (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Headsup to fix ur sign on ANI

here--DBigXray 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Five tildes rather than four produces only a timestamp without the user links, and is thus a common mistake... Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I recall providing some general comments, which were largely addressed. However, my understanding is that much of the disagreement about the article stems from its discussion of gender, sexualization, and attractiveness. Those are deep-rooted issues (speaking generally; I'm not able to judge the article in detail at the moment), and fixing them may require substantial restructuring and/or rewriting large bits. So I don't want to comment on the article right now, because my suggestions are likely to be rendered irrelevant. I would suggest identifying those editors who had criticized the article on those grounds—SlimVirgin springs to mind—and asking others for feedback once those issues have been sorted. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde. I've actually been working on the article [on and off] for five months at this point, and have re-written the whole thing several times (using comments/criticisms left at the FACs/PRs). I'm now going door-to-door asking people if any of those issues still remain. Unfortunately, the editor you've linked to above has not responded to either of the messages I left on their talk page over the past 2 months, so that door is pretty much locked shut, it appears. I understand if you don't wanna get involved again, though, because I've admittedly taken over a messy situation. The whole thing irks me. I just wanna feel like I did something, one way or the other. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

The reactions sub para in Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not created by me I only restored it providing citations. --Donkey335 (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Donkey335: I know; but you restored it by reverting an edit made by someone else, in which they specifically said that it was a copyright violation; as such, you're just as responsible. It doesn't matter that you cited the source; the text was copied word for word, and was a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. Please don't do it again. Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk's submarine

Could you please explain how the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's submarine amounts to a merge? I explicitly asked what content should be merged back, pointing some problems with the WP:DUE policy in doing that, and no one in the discussion replied to my question nor addressed those points. Given that this is your assesment, I think you should provide some instructions on how the merger should be made. Diego (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: To put it very simply, your argument was not wrong, but it did not gain consensus. Disagreements such as these are largely matters of judgement; there isn't a clear-cut wrong and right. You argued, quite reasonably, that a) the topic was notable and b) that there was too much material than could be fit into the main page. Most people did not agree with (b), and argued that there wasn't too much content to merge. The claims to notability were also questioned, but not by very many. All of these arguments have a basis in policy. Other arguments, however, are not: "multiple reasons of interest" (keep #4) is a bit of an IAR rationale that I can't give much weight to: similarly, arguing to keep because there it isn't clear that there will be sustained coverage is also a week argument. Furthermore, demonstrating notability is an argument against deletion, but not against a merger; numerous notable topics are better covered in broader articles. Numerically, there 2 (nom + 1) arguing for deletion, 4 for keeping, and 6 for a merger, of which two keep !votes were weak. In toto, no outcome except for "merge" is possible here. Precisely what needs to be merged was not something discussed in the AfD, and as such the AfD provides no guidance. Just use common sense, and open an RFC for contentious material. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll follow WP:MERGETEXT and see how it goes with the target article. Diego (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd still want you to explain how you assessed WP:DUE, since it was addressed in the discussion and it can become a problem now that the merger is done. Were you aware of the discussions at Talk:Elon Musk and Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue that I mentioned? Diego (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: That's not quite how AfD works. The closing admin (me, in this case) has to judge consensus on the basis of the arguments presented: we can't read every background discussion, nor can we make a decision based on what we would have !voted. A large number of people supported the merger; enough to constitute a supermajority, actually, though the precise number only played a small role in my decision. Sometimes consensus doesn't go your way: and if you're absolutely certain I made the wrong call, please take this to DRV, because I'm not about to reverse my closure. Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but one of the arguments in the discussion was that we already had a previous consensus that the content would be undue weight for the target article. Now you're saying that your decision has been made with a local consensus that it wouldn't be undue. So I feel that you've disregarded one of the main arguments in the discussion with respect to the WP:DUE policy. Diego (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Maybe there was local consensus: as I said before, I'm not going to read a bunch of background. But even if there was, consensus can change; and if a bunch of people at the previous discussion felt strongly about this then they should have opined at the AfD. I'm sorry, but I don't think anything I say is really going to persuade you: nor is anything you say likely to persuade me to revert a closure supported by policy based arguments and a 2:1 supermajority. So please either let this go, or take it to DRV. Vanamonde (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK? Biblical criticism

HI! Saw the note on DYK? Biblical criticism about five hours after you posted it, but I don't see what happened after that! Did it get pulled? I swear, this DYK has been more trouble than anything!! I think it's jinxed! (Humor) :-) Anyway just wanted to be sure you knew I had answered.Jenhawk777 02:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: No it's still got nearly two days before it appears on the main page; if it's fixed before then, great, otherwise I'll pull it and substitute another. Vanamonde (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed? The hook is found in the last paragraph of the "Twentieth Century" section under history. Is that what you mean? Jenhawk777 04:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to nag, but I'd like to know--does the hook need fixing somehow? What does it need? The whole quote is in the article now. I understood that to be the issue. If not, I need to know what needs doing in order to do it. Thank you! Jenhawk777 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Not quite, I'm afraid. Take a look at the DYK nomination page. I'm sorry this is taking so long, but we need to be thorough with the things we put on the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ursula K Le Guin Bibliography

2 August 2018 "Poems have only been included here if they've been covered in WP:RS; also, I find it doubtful in the extreme that an unknown but published woodcut created by Le Guin exists. I'm minded to remove the other entries too, unless they can be referenced, but I'm leaving them in for the moment" 3 August 2018 "adding refs: also found ref for woodcut removed in previous edit, but as a standalone artwork unlike anything else in the list, I'm disinclined to add it."

I have now scanned the relevant issue of Encore into a pdf, and it is currently uploading to my Google Drive; it's got 5+ hours to go; I've got a slow connection. Once that is done, I'll provide you a link to it.

Bear in mind, that to the best of my knowledge it's still in copyright. So, once you've got the link, please edit it out of the post. If we're ever able to determine that the items are out of copyright, uploading to the Internet Archive would be appropriate, but until then, I'm providing it to you so that someone else who cares about this has a copy so that they have a better chance of verifying other mentions of these items, since I don't have ready access to the print resources.

This is one of those cases where there may not be anything to use as a source that Wikipedia will accept as verification, since the statements of individuals is not considered adequate; on the whole, I agree with that policy, but at times like this, it gets frustrating. Of course, I could always make a post to my blog concerning everything I know about this issue and the items contained in it... which might then be able to be used as a source? Dunno. (Added: Ah, hadn't spotted the 3 August note that you had found a reference for the woodcut; good to know!)

There are three libraries with copies of this issue that I have been able to verify. Two in Portland, one in Eugene. I added the OCLC/WorldCat Record Number, and the information regarding those libraries to the pdf as part of an intro sheet.

When I contacted the University of Oregon Special Collections to verify if they had this issue, they were not aware that it had four items by Le Guin, one by Vonda N. McIntyre, and one by Laurence Yep, none of which show up in any source that I have access to. In that they have a specialized collection on women authors in science fiction, with an emphasis on Le Guin, they were glad to find out about it.

From the publication data in the issue, they had an annual circulation of 350,000. It was distributed to those attending performances of the Portland Opera, the Portland Symphony, and the Portland Junior Symphony Orchestra, with an insert in the center specific to the actual performance. So while I'm surprised that this publication isn't listed on Ursula's official website, nor on Vonda's, I'm not surprised at it's not showing up anywhere else.

The only reason I knew about it is that I attended at least one performance where this was distributed; I haven't checked my second copy to see if it is from the same performance or not, and thus if it was a second copy from my father, or my own copy from a different performance. Anyway, I personally possess two near-mint copies of this issue at this time. Um, do you know of any archives or scholar/researcher that might want one of those copies? That's what got me started on this, trying to find homes for them; I don't want them recycled by my heirs, if that can be avoided.

JohnBobMead (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@JohnBobMead: Thanks for taking the trouble, but I think it's possible that you didn't read the latest version of the article. There were two issues with the content you added; a) there wasn't a source, and b) poems were generally not included. I have now addressed the first problem, and the stories that you added are now listed in the bibliography with sources. The poem is a more difficult issue, because she has written a very large number of standalone poems, which are not included unless there's significant commentary related to those poems. So, unless you can find commentary from independent sources related to these poems and the woodcut, I don't think it's appropriate to add them, even if we can verify their existence. If you disagree, perhaps you could open a discussion on the talk page of the article, and we can take it from there. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I did see that the poem and woodblock had been removed, which is what led to looking at the history page and seeing your reasons for removing those items; your explanation here makes sense. It's the whole notability issue; it's not an attempt to list everything she produced, but rather those items that became notable, with notable having to be defined as published commentary exceeding some threshold, and what that threshold is in a particular case is what leads to the "fun" discussions.

I may have made as many as 20 edits in however many years I've been registered here; it's not a major focus for me, to put it mildly. So there's stuff I'm not clear on, because I haven't taken the time to investigate and I haven't accumulated the experience necessary to make the correct judgements.

Anyway, in case you'd like to see the issue of Encore, the link is Encore: Magazine of the Arts April-May 1977; as well as the four items by Ursula, there's an essay concerning her written by Vonda N. McIntyre, which may or may not be the same as one she published a bit later with a similer name which does show up in her various bibliographies, and a story by Laurence Yep. My cursory search of the Internet has failed to find mention of these, so notability is definitely a concern in regard to adding them to this wiki. I had to edit the pdf; it was initially at 600dpi, which made it huge, which is why it was taking forever to upload, and as long as I was adjusting the dpi I rescanned a couple of pages that had come out poorly. The version I uploaded is 96dpi, but still very clear.

Please edit out anything I've posted here that doesn't need to remain on your talk page for future reference. I recognize that I'm overly verbose; sad to say, the Internet is basically all the contact I have with others at this time.

JohnBobMead (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@JohnBobMead: No problem. I would enjoy reading that issue at some point, so thank you for giving me a link. There's certainly plenty of other important things in life besides Wikipedia, so not understanding things when you start out is not a problem It's when misunderstandings persist in the face of good friendly advice that it can become a problem.... Anyhow, thanks for being civil and understanding about it, and best wishes. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick move request

Hey Vanamonde, I saw you were around and was wondering if you could move User:EnterpriseyBot/reply-link.js to User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js over a redirect. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Done: let me know if you want the talk page moved too. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the talk page is fine. Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a note

To avoid clogging that AE thread, I thought this reply to part of your observations more appropriate here.

Yes, I said English is my native language, and implied Debresser didn't construe it correctly. You are quite correct that many foreign speakers know a language better than native speakers. The point was made by George Steiner, After Babel, OUP 1975 p.470 who, after remarking:'the technical proficiency (of Japanese scholars) in English humbles one' added that, sadly, so much that is being said is correct, so little is right, which is precisely the case here on that sentence stating (in a way that I think would embarrass a lot of people in whose name it is written) 'Jews form part of a 'greater distinctive ethnic group' (than Arabs).'

In replying:

'You misunderstood the intention of the phrase. The intention is, obviously, that "Jews" is the greater distinctive ethnicity of "Arab Jews" (and of "American Jews", etc.')

Debresser took the sentence one way, assuming it is a misunderstanding to take it any other way. Language is a wonderful, yet insidiously clever, thing: it says or implies, as often as not, far more than what any one speaker might think it is saying. Native fluency in a language, even by if acquired as a second language, means having the ability to see all the shades and nuances of statements (which indeed often escape native speakers) .As a philologist, I took it as ineludibly suggesting also a racist meaning. My own work on racism and nationalism has a google scholar hit of close to 1,000. In peer-review, that suggests I know the topic well, which doesn’t exclude, of course, my human liability to err, but not, I think, here. That sense is as present, if not more liable to be read as present as the other, to any native speaker who troubles herself to woo her mother tongue's mischievous enchantments with a passion. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You're reading in this case is likely correct (I haven't the time to dig into it); all I mean is that the same point can be made without reference to Debresser's origins: "you have misunderstood this" does the job, does it not? Also, consider this; if you were unable to persuade Debresser based on previous argumentation, do you think it likely that he would be persuaded because you pointed out that he was not an English speaker? I think not. The best course in such a situation is likely to be to invite outside opinion. In any case, to be absolutely clear, I'm not questioning your understanding of English, merely the necessity of pointing it out. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU (Talk) 07:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Path slopu, I appreciate it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping it cool

		A glass of Lassi for you
		Here is a glass of Lassi for you. Lassi is a non-alcoholic drink, made from milk and popular in countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. for taking my sarcasm in light spirit at AN. cheers. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 23:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

@DBigXray: Thanks. I'm glad you meant that comment as a joke, and I hope there's no hard feelings. Just keep in mind that a site-ban discussion (or indeed, most AN discussions) tends to be quite tense, and a joke could easily be misconstrued. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

VNM, You are mistaken above in what I meant above. I never said that my sarcasm was meant as a joke or should be discredited as a joke. Rest of your above reply is based on this flawed misunderstanding of my comment. I hope you are well aware that sarcasm is not the same as a joke. Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt". Sarcasm may employ ambivalence, although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic.. Cheers.. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I am well aware of the definition of sarcasm, thank you. I believed you to have been joking after your first message here because no reasonable person would make a "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt" and then expect it to be taken "in light spirit". You're demonstrating perfectly the problem with being sarcastic in such a discussion. You made a comment that was entirely out of left field: so I simply told you not to be silly. If you were making a serious analogy between suggesting that other individuals were also guilty in the disputes Nadir Ali was involved in, and conspiracy theories related to the Illuminati, then your comment is more troubling, because it suggests you've lost perspective in that discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, your belief is wrong. My sarcasm was made to taunt the comment that in my opinion was derailing the discussion on a very serious topic of violations from a particular individual. his violations were presented clearly. Asking to read the bigger picture (That you asked BMK there), or trying to involve others, indulging in Whataboutery, False equivalence and muddying the waters are all diversionary tactic employed to allow an escape. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my comment now. And there should be no misunderstanding on the genuine intention behind my sarcasm. Calling it a joke amounts to belittle it and I appreciate that you dont. Over and out. Thank you. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: And that's the problem. If you wish to disagree with someone's comments because you feel they represent "[Whataboutery]], False equivalence and muddying the waters", then you should say that, instead of making nonsensical allusions to the Illuminati. Given the seriousness of what you were attempting to say, both your comment there and your subsequent message here are strange, to say the least. Writing what you mean in a straightforward manner will avoid future misunderstandings. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion: Holor

Hello Vanamonde93. Regarding the deletion of the article on holors, you mentioned that "[you] would be happy to refund the content to the userspace of anyone who wishes to perform a merger". I'm interested in doing that, because I think that this topic is very conceptually important (even if it is not very popular). Perhaps some mention of holors and holor theory should be made in the page on tensors. Or, if there is no satisfactory place for the content on Wikipedia, I could find a home for it elsewhere.

Zeroparallax (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zeroparallax: Sure, here you go: User:Zeroparallax/Holor. Just please remember that there was fairly solid consensus at the AfD that this is not independently notable. Developing this towards a merger is fine, but if you're looking to create a standalone article you need to improve the sourcing to the point where it unequivocally demonstrates notability. Vanamonde (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup

Are you happy with the draft newsletter in my sandbox2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yes, thanks! If I'd make a tweak at all, I'd just substitute "editor" for "man (or woman)": I understand that you're making a reference there, but it may be misconstrued. Apologies for not evaluating more submissions (though I did check several that had already been approved); RL intervened, and it seemed as though whenever I'm on-wiki I've been caught up in silly drama here and there. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

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 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Luis Posada Carriles

On 2 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luis Posada Carriles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles twice escaped from prison in Venezuela, where he faced trial for the bombing of Cubana Flight 455? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Posada Carriles. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luis Posada Carriles), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Vanamonde93 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpgjhpjm 02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Rapidfire band 1983

Hello, I'm inquiring about the reason for the Rapidfire band page deletion. It was explained to me that it was deleted because of page seemed only notable because of Axl Rose's participation. The band and its members, particularly the songwriter, guitarist and owner of the music has been featured in many news sites, and not just exclusive to music news: https://www.maxim.com/entertainment/what-its-play-and-be-sued-axl-rose, http://metalsludge.tv/rapid-fire-guitarist-kevin-lawrence/, http://loudwire.com/kevin-lawrence-rapidfire-dies-at-51/, http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kevin-lawrence-dies/, and many more.