Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

November 2022

I've gone ahead and started the FAC for James Madison in case you might have time to follow-up on your helpful peer review comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I did see that, I meant to stop by soon. I don't expect to have substantive comments, and I expect to support on prose at least. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Display appears to be taking his dispute with you from the Madison Talk page now to the FAC review page for Madison. Could you look at this? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, that seems like a very dishonest comment. As I made clear in my post, I opposed nomination because I identified several issues with the article which you mostly did not fix. It has nothing to do with any "dispute" with Vanonmonde93. Display name 99 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

RevDel Request

Hi @Vanamonde93. I'm requesting RevDel of this diff under criteria RD2. Thanks & Welcome. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 19:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Raydann: Done, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly what I wanted ...

Again, I cannot thank you enough for finding that link. It was exactly what I needed to show that her work was largely forgotten because of her gender. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

My pleasure! Didn't do much, to be honest, the link popped up in my google scholar search...Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination deadlocked due to editor with history of page blocks and topic blocks

The FAC nomination for James Madison appears to be deadlocked now due to an editor (User Display name 99) who has multiple page blocks and topic bans. I had not learned of his edit history problems until only recently because the notification of blocks on his Wikitools editor history page only says that he has a page block for his disruptive editing at the FA for Andrew Jackson. Girth Summit has offered to look into User:Display conduct further if requested and I'm thinking that this may be useful to do. I'm also now noticing that User:Display seems to be planning to take on the FA for John Adams next as well. In my case, User:Display has driven away the co-nominator for the FAC for James Madison (Mikeblas, who has sys ops tools) and User:Indy beetle who now appears to be driven away from the FAC page by User:Display. After the FAC coordinator asked him to remove his disparagements of me at FAC, User:Display refused to remove them and dropped his edits on the page once the damage and deadlock was accomplished. A deadlocked page seems like a waste of many editors time, such as Vanamonde's time, simply because User:Display currently has free reign to disrupt review processes at will for his own undefined purposes, and then he bows out when his disruptive edit history is discovered. Is it useful to ask that User:Girth Summit investigate User:Display further to see if another topic ban, this time for ante-bellum politics, for User:Display might be needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I am allowed to oppose a nomination for featured article status if I want to do so. I don't know what you mean by saying that I'm "planning to take on the FA for John Adams;" I successfully nominated that article for featured article status years ago. Additionally, Girth Summit only offered to investigate me further if anyone claimed that I violated my post-1992 American politics topic ban. The editor did not offer to investigate misconduct against me generally, but only for that specific issue. It would be appreciated if you would stop going around on the talk pages of multiple editors to defame me. This conduct reflects extremely poorly on yourself, and even in the context of the broken Wikipedia system in which I have been unjustifiably persecuted, I don't think that you will succeed in your attempted aims.
If you or Mikeblas can't handle an opposition, then WP:FAC is not the right place for you. Again, people are allowed to oppose a nomination for featured article status. That doesn't mean that they're guilty of an offense against Wikipedia guidelines. It's time to drop your temper tantrum and start acting like a mature adult. Display name 99 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I also only have one page block (the Andrew Jackson article and talk page) and only one topic ban. Please check your facts. Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: This is a part of the FA process; users may oppose if they feel their feedback hasn't been actioned. What you should do is to address those pieces of Display name's commentary that you agree with; explain why you disagree with the rest; note that you've done so at FAC; and move on. The coordinators will take into account whether the opposition is on actionable grounds. I know this is frustrating, but getting into a lengthy personal argument with Display name isn't going to serve your interests. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: If you feel that you can interact with Display on this FAC then possibly you can consider doing so for this one user; Mikebas has identified him as "bickering and hairsplitting" and Wasted Time R has said on my Talk page that Display's edits are "haywire" in quality. Still, if you feel that you are sufficiently rough and tough to interact with him then possibly you could do this for his FAC comments on Madison. My understanding is that I would then interact with all the other editors at FAC as I have previously done in all my other previous GANs and FACs. Mikebas withdrew from the co-nomination and he has over twice my experience and he has sysops tools; possibly you could do this though other editors such as Mikebas and Indie beetle have given up on Display as being "bickering and hairsplitting". If you can try this and have difficulty with Display, then User:Girth has offered to look into Display's edits if asked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, I see that you are continuing to embarrass yourself. Indy Beetle has said nothing whatsoever about my conduct. You attributing that editor's departure to me is at best speculation and at worst a misrepresentation of truth. Again, Girth Summit only offered to look into my edits if someone said that I violated my topic ban, not for anything else. That editor did not offer to look at them to probe for any misconduct whatsoever. The fact that you're still saying this even after I corrected you tempts me to call you a liar. I looked at your talk page but could not find where Wasted Time R said that my edits were "haywire." Did you simply get confused or did you lie about this too? And about other editors leaving, I can tell you, as someone who has been through multiple featured article nominations, both successful and unsuccessful, a personal argument between a reviewer and a nominator tends to scare other potential reviewers off. After my oppose vote, you could have either tried to address the reasons that I gave or left it alone. Instead, you decided to wage a personal war against me. Because of that, you may have a difficult time attracting other reviewers. This may in fact be why Indy Beetle has left, but it would be your fault, not mine.
Also, the idea that I would ever participate in this review process again, even if it's with another editor, after the vicious jihad that you waged against me after my simple oppose vote, is laughable. Display name 99 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, you don't need to "deal with" Display name. He left some content comments; you only need deal with those. Nothing else requires a response, and you're actually hurting yourself by complaining about his behavior at FAC. I have no wish to engage there because there's no need to do so; it's not the place to examine anyone's behavior. Stick to discussing the content, and you'll be okay. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

AfD close for Nonproliferation_Policy_Education_Center

Hi. I wanted to respectfully context the deletion closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, as I don't believe we had a thorough discussion of whether Henry Sokolski had stronger sources or not. I actually don't buy that the sources for his biography are that strong, except for where he is discussing NPEC, as he has a standard boilerplate bio that he submits with every contributed article he writes. From that standpoint, he might be notable per WP:NACADEMIC, but as we did not discuss this specifically, I think it's unfair based on the !vote of one participant to merge the think tank content into the bio. At best, I think this should have been closed as "No Consensus". Cielquiparle (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: A no consensus closure would not be appropriate, because there was clear consensus that decent content existed, and that only one article was appropriate between the two topics. Consensus for which article that should be was weaker. I think perhaps you're taking a narrow view of what may be placed in the biography. The close was in favor of a merger, not deletion; there was consensus that the content you added belonged. However, I would be willing to amend the closure to say that a reverse merger isn't ruled out if a talk page consensus supports it. I'm not willing to close this as "no consensus"; that doesn't reflect the body of arguments presented. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I would really appreciate that! (Meaning "reverse merger" not ruled out.) Yes, I would welcome further discussion on the Talk page, as I that is what I am after – a more thorough discussion, also from people who understand the issues more. We haven't had a lot of participation in deletion discussions about think tanks, so I am very interested to see where it lands. I was trying not to overcomment, but my concern as well is that the specialized/sensitive subject matter of the think tank (nuclear nonproliferation) needs to be taken into consideration as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, so amended. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment 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 19:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Albatross under FA review

I have nominated Albatross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Eugene Hasenfus

FAIR ENOUGH!

Thanks, MurrayGreshler (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Shreveport

The closure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport does not address WP:NLIST:There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. It appears to be an attempt to write policy outside of guidelines, which is NOT the role of closers.Djflem (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hardly. This isn't a cross-categorization; buildings in Shreveport has not been demonstrated to be a encyclopedic list, and the description of precedent here (which is purely a description, mind you) is entirely rebutted by the demonstrated precedent with respect to lists of tallest buildings in not-too-large towns. Besides, a lack of documented consensus on how to assess a type of article is not a license to keep all such articles, it only means any applicable argument needs to be evaluated with care. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sock again?

Hi there, I don't know how to add an account to [1] can you help please? I've just seen this [2] at HispanTV

Thanks,

Sorry, I forgot to sign. Knitsey (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knitsey: At WP:SPI, there's instructions within the collapsed box titled "how to open an investigation"; you need to enter the name of the previous sockmaster, and then fill out the template it gives you like you would for a new investigation. I'm afraid I don't have the time to look into this one for you, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No thats fine, I will go take a look. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article mentorship

Hello! I saw on WP:Mentoring for FAC that you are listed as a potential mentor for eventual FA nominations and was wondering if that offer still stands. I have been working on Competitive debate in the United States for several months and would like to eventually bring it to FAC but am aware that it is a daunting task, so any advice you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. If you're not able to help, totally fine - Just let me know :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Thanks for asking, but I'm afraid I simply do not have the time at the moment. The topic is also rather far outside my wheelhouse. It seems an interesting topic, I wish you the best of luck with it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Theodora Kroeber

Congratulations, Vanamonde93! The article you nominated, Theodora Kroeber, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Inland Whale

On 1 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Inland Whale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Inland Whale, by Theodora Kroeber, sought to demonstrate the literary merit of Indigenous American oral traditions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Inland Whale. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Inland Whale), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

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

Administrator changes

readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded TheresNoTime
removed TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration

On 2 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that anthropologist Theodora Kroeber wrote a biography of her husband that was described as a "welcome and refreshing exception" to the "often embarrassing" biographies of men written by their wives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Request a copy

Hello Vanamonde93. I am requesting undeletion or some other copy of Noble immigration to the United States to my User:Draft: space. I haven't done this before so I hope this is the right place. Thank you. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: This isn't a recent topic that's going to become more notable over time; do you have material that wasn't discussed at AfD? If not, what is your plan of action here? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I am the sole author of the page and so I think it is normal to allow me to see my own work.
Besides that, yes, I do have a lot of further material. I was continually editing the article and so the article has changed significantly since it was nominated for deletion. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@Invasive Spices: You would usually be allowed to see your work, what you do with it is more the issue. Are you willing to commit to using the AfC process for recreation, and to not submitting to AfC without substantive new sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No of course not. I am committed to following whatever the appropriate and normal procedure would be. Is this required of other editors before obtaining a copy of their own work? I don't understand why you're asking this. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 November 2022 (UTC)
My edits to the draft will include substantive new sources. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The "normal procedure" after an article is deleted by community consensus is to move on and work on something else. Admins aren't required to provide userspace copies when the deletions occurred at AfD. I am personally willing to do so in many cases, when a strong argument can be made that further improvement would address the reasons for deletion, and that the user wishing to work in draftspace will commit to not wasting the community's time by recreating an article that is substantively the same as the one that was deleted. The commitment I asked for is to convince me that that condition is met; if you're not willing to so commit, I decline to undelete anything. Your recourse is then to request undeletion at DRV, or to appeal my action to ARBCOM. I don't recommend doing either, as consensus in that discussion was quite clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course I intend to address the things that made people want to delete. I have no intentions of wasting everyone's time. When I am ready to discuss the article again, it will not be "substantively the same".
As for consensus there was no consensus for the closer reasoning. One person said that and the closer agreed with it. No one else agreed with that. If the "source solely about this subject" standard is applied then most of Wikipedia will be deleted, including many of the created pages both of you list on your user pages. On the other hand this has 14 legislative debates solely about it. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if you are not recognizing the reason why the article was deleted, and misrepresenting it quite substantially here, then I see no reason why we won't be having the same discussion again shortly. If you think there's notability issues with my creations you may always send them to AfD, but I don't recommend it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
What am I misrepresenting? Go on. That's a serious accusation.
no sources discuss the topic as-a-whole[3]? I see now that your statement does have two very different possible interpretations, no sources-as-a-whole discuss the topic and no sources discuss the topic-as-a-whole. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The second interpretation is the correct one, and obviously so, given that the argument was made at the AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. I was concerned you were being deceptive but I see you sincerely didn't read the thread. That argument was made by one commenter and dropped within a few hours of the AfD beginning. Because I satisfied that[4] etc the goalposts were then shifted to the first interpretation, requiring sources solely about one subject. The second interpretation was never raised by anyone before or after.


Other matters: same discussion again shortly When I say "when I am ready to discuss" obviously that means "there will be some time" and "there will be some discussion". I will not move the same page back into Mainspace. Is that even possible? I haven't done this before.

AfD my creations That is obviously the opposite of what I said. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That undertaking is all I was looking for, so you may have your copy. Yes, it's quite possible for editors to move their creations into mainspace again; and editors who do so without addressing the reasons for deletion are a considerable source of disruption. That said; you're still seriously misunderstanding the AfD, and your chances of rescuing the topic are quite low as a consequence. @Rosguill: was not asking for sources that discuss nobles in the US and nothing else; they were asking for sources discussing "Noble immigration to the US" in the abstract, rather than specific examples thereof; i.e., the topic as-a-whole, i.e., the second interpretation above. This is a fundamental aspect of notability for complex or abstract topics on Wikipedia; we need sources discussing the phenomenon, not examples thereof. The old statutes you link above are therefore quite useless; they are also primary sources, and wouldn't contribute to notability anyway. You needn't respond further, as I think I've made my point, and your userspace copy is here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Still accusing me of seriously misunderstanding but also forbidding me to respond. What a strange combination. I don't enjoy talking in circles about things already laid to rest elsewhere.
Rosguill hasn't responded to your ping in 2 weeks and probably never will. The "consensus" you gave for closing – and continue to repeat here – had no support atall. It was not Rosguill's position after the first few hours of the AfD. It had no supporters after the first few hours of the AfD. It is a very interesting phrase which happens to have two possible interpretations only distinguishable by the placement of a -. Coincidentally this makes it difficult for anyone else reading this to understand and participate.
The old statutes Notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
The old statutes…are also primary sources Yet another repetition of yet another objection I have already answered several times. I anticipated this objection and so provided modern, secondary analyses[5][6][7] to demonstrate continued relevance and interest.
Anyhow the restoration is very helpful. There is nothing wrong with more work.
If WP:DELREV works correctly then this discussion should be all I require to prevail there but I have never done this before. I don't know if it's an encyclopedia building environment or a political environment.
In either case further work will only strengthen the WP:V of something which has been very controversial and remains a part of standing US statutory law to this day. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I've made my point; if you attempt recreation without addressing the issues, we may need to revisit this conversation, but otherwise I'm disengaging here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter

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

Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here.

Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.

Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.

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

*All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) 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 08:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The first amendment

Hello. I hope this finds you well.

In your edit of the first amendment you describe how 1A, “prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion.”

The following is from Cornell Law: “The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.”

“But also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.” Is vital, and should be included in the wiki description.

Ideally, Cornells’ (or a similar source) entire definition should be included or paraphrased for the sake of clarity and accuracy.

Thank you for your consideration. Cheers 98.24.249.100 (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I can see I have never edited the page First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it's not a topic that I would typically edit anyhow. Perhaps you meant to contact someone else? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, you recently blocked VinnyHMI HopeMedia Italia RVS Radio Voce della Speranza di Villa Aurora FIRENZE (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry. Could you please have a look at a new account, Annunziata Vincenzo HopeMediaItalia RADIO KRISHNA CENTRALE VILLA VRINDAVANA FIRENZE (talk · contribs)? I don't have any evidence apart from the very unusual usernames. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just asked someone else about whether to add this one to the sock puppet investigation? [8]. Knitsey (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Apologies both for the delayed response. It looks like an obvious sock, but I see it has been blocked already. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Copy of deleted page

Hi Vanamonde, you have recently deleted the SensUs wikipedia page. It had some issues that were tried to resolve. Furthermore, there was a lot of data on the page that has gone lost, since there was no copy of it... I would like to ask whether it is possible to in some way restore the page to make adjustments to it, or to send me the article by email. Thanks in advance! Babette van Leeuwen (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Babette van Leeuwen: Every single edit you've made on Wikipedia is related to this page; what is your connection to its subject? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I am responsible for keeping the Wikipedia page of SensUs up to date this year. I did not know that there were issues with it, and made the first adjustments just by filling in the Teams that have won the competition this year. (SensUs is a student team that organizes an international competition each year, in order to stimulate health care technologies in the field of biosensing). Now that it has become clear that our page does not support the rules set by Wikipedia, I would like to either adjust the page in a way that it does obey the rules or have a copy of the page, so that we can store our information somewhere else (maybe by setting up another website with easy overview of the themes and Teams per year). Babette van Leeuwen (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Babette van Leeuwen:, if SensUs has made you responsible for keeping the page up to date, then you have a definite conflict of interest with respect to the topic, and depending on what your precise relationship is, your activity may also count as paid editing. You need to read the pages I just linked, and make any necessary disclosures, before doing anything else.
Also, the basic issue with the page was that it lacked evidence of notability, and specifically, that it did not meet WP:NCORP. This isn't something that can be fixed by minor adjustments, so I'm not willing to give you a copy immediately. If you believe the topic does meet NCORP, please provide a couple of independent, reliable, secondary sources as described at WP:SIRS, and if you're able to do so, I'll give you a copy in userspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and questions. SensUs is organized by students in their free time. I am one of the students who organize the SensUs competition. I do not receive any payment. We organize SensUs because we think it is important to share information and stimulate education and innovation on a worldwide scale. The legal status of SensUs is that it is a foundation, independent and non-profit.
You ask a question about the notability of the topic. SensUs is an international student competition, it connects universities and students across the globe. A related student competition is iGEM, International Genetically Engineered Machine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Genetically_Engineered_Machine. iGEM is an international student competition in the field of genetic engineering. SensUs is an international student competition in the field of biosensing.
To demonstrate the notability of the topic, I give you a few references related to SensUs, including press releases of universities, articles in the world of medicine, and newspaper articles:
https://eithealth.eu/news-article/two-student-teams-win-sensus-competition/
https://www.teknat.uu.se/news/nyhetsdetaljsida/?id=15232&typ=artikel&lang=en
https://lrd.kuleuven.be/en/news/3-gold-medals-for-ku-leuven-team-in-international-biosensing-competition-2
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/the-lau-sens-team-wins-three-prizes-at-the-sensus-/
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/the-diversity-in-our-team-was-key-to-our-success/
http://www.cls.en.zju.edu.cn/2020/0901/c21675a2190046/page.htm
https://bme.unc.edu/2018/06/bme-sensus-team-invited-to-represent-the-u-s-at-international-competition/
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4583/5/1/80/htm
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssensors.7b00307
https://www.ed.nl/eindhoven/studenten-zoeken-methode-om-sluipmoordenaar-sepsis-snel-op-te-sporen-doodsoorzaak-nummer-een-op-ics~a0b51831/?cb=5516f247f2136b01a332977562f91b0b&auth_rd=1
https://www.ed.nl/eindhoven/studenten-zoeken-naar-manier-om-griep-snel-op-te-sporen-bij-corona-liepen-we-achter-de-feiten-aan~a8449e11/
Can you please let me know how you view the notability of the SensUs Student Competition? And how do you view the wikipedia page of the iGEM student competition (International Genetically Engineered Machine - Wikipedia)? Babette van Leeuwen (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@Babette van Leeuwen: Thanks for clarifying your position. I am no longer concerned about paid editing, but you do very much have a conflict of interest here. Again, please read that page, and make sure to make any disclosures before participating further in main page editing.
The issue with your sources is that all the substantive ones appear to be universities discussing their own teams winning a competition. Even if the university websites are considered reliable sources (and that is debatable), they are not independent of the topic here, and aren't very useful for determining notability. Can you try to find sources from the news media? I'm not going to look at the other page you link, as it's not relevant to our discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93
I have read the page and made the disclosure of COI on my user page. I am not able to make any disclosures on the SensUs page because it was deleted. Is this enough for now? Other sources that noted SensUs are the following:
·       Competing for quality of life – What it means to be part of the SensUs competition? - EIT Health Germany (eit-health.de)
·       Sanquin contributes to an international student competition for technical innovations
·       Jonge ingenieurs strijden om de beste methode om bloedwaarden van reumapatiënten te meten (trouw.nl)
·       TU Eindhoven jaagt ontwikkeling nieuwe sensoren aan | Eindhoven | ed.nl
·       Waarom een biosensor bij reumatoide artritis? - Nationale Vereniging ReumaZorg Nederland
·       Studenten zoeken naar manier om griep snel op te sporen: ‘Bij corona liepen we achter de feiten aan’ | Eindhoven | AD.nl
·       SensUs: wereldwijde studentenwedstrijd om Influenza snel in speeksel te kunnen meten | Influenzastichting
·       Studentencompetitie SensUs zet in op biosensor voor betere dosering epilepsiemedicijn (brainporteindhoven.com)
Can you let me know your view on the independence of these sources? Babette van Leeuwen (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not have the time to examine sources in dutch, which I do not speak; can you tell me who is publishing those? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
'Trouw' is a Dutch daily newspaper. 'Eindhovens Dagblad (ed)' is a newspaper from the region around Eindhoven. 'Nationale Vereniging ReumaZorg Nederland' is a foundation set up for patients with Reumatoïde artritis. 'Het Algemeen Dagblad (AD)' is a Dutch daily newspaper as well. 'Influenzastichting' is a foundation set up by general practioners for patients that suffer from Influenza. 'Brainport Eindhoven' is an innovative technology ecosystem in the region of Eindhoven that has both national and international contacts. Babette van Leeuwen (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The news sources look somewhat reasonable; but I don't see the term "SenseUs" mentioned therein. Are they discussing the same thing? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
They are discussing the student competition for the development of biosensors, which is SensUs. Babette van Leeuwen (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear Vanamonde93, you want to see a couple of independent, reliable, secondary sources about SensUs Student Competition. I have pdf-versions of two newspaper articles published in 2016 and 2019 (if you want I can look for more). I passed them through translation software, so that you can see the articles in English and in Dutch. Can I send you these pdf articles? Jean88Bird (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jean88Bird and Babette van Leeuwen: I'm afraid I don't have the time to review more sources in a different language. I took another look at the deleted page, and based on what I saw I'm going to decline your request for a copy of the page. It's too promotional, and is entirely drawn from the SensUs website. If you were to try to write a policy-compliant version, basically none of that content could be included. I suggest you do the following. Make sure both of you have made the necessary conflict of interest disclosures. Then, start a draft at Draft:SenseUs. Write a minimalist article based on the news sources, using every independent news source you can find. Use the organization's website only for absolutely necessary information. No lengthy mission statements, no lists of competitors and venues. Once you've done so, submit it to WP:AFC, and see what becomes of it. Given your conflict of interest, and that your organization's claim to notability is marginal at best, I can't help you further. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    Dear Vanamonde, thanks a lot, with your explanations it is clear that the original SensUs page was not good, and equally so the pages of many many other student competitions present on wikipedia. Your proposal is perfect: for us to make a COI disclosure, make a minimalist draft based on news sources, and submit to WP:AFC for review. I will contact Babette and we will follow those steps. On a sidenote, if possible I would love to have a screenshot of the deleted SensUs page; not to use it for wikipedia, but for my personal archive, as there was a lot of detailed information on the page. Jean88Bird (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Jean88Bird:, every piece of that page was drawn from your website. What information could you possibly not already have? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    The Table with the overview of the awards (which team won which award in which year). Jean88Bird (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Jean88Bird: If that's all you want, I don't see the point in undeleting the article, but if you send me an email using the "email a user" function, I will reply with a screenshot. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review

Hello. Would you be able to review South Asian river dolphin? I'd like to prepare it for FAC. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I'm willing in principle but there's a few other things I've committed to doing first...If nobody else picks it up, I will try to get to it in a couple of weeks. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Would you be able to soon? LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't promise anything this week; depends on RL work; but by next week, certainly. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Hope you'll still review at FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: Apologies for the slow response; as you can see, I was rather too busy for the GAR. It will be my pleasure to review at FAC, please feel free to ping me if I don't stop by within a week of nominating. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Its there already. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Farseer trilogy scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the [[Farseer trilogy]] article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 12, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Same User attacking SFR

Wandarips Knitsey (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

2022–23 in Indian football

Dear Vanamonde, I am currently working on the AFDMERGE backlog and merged the content from 2022–23 in Indian football to Draft:2022–23 in Indian football per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 in Indian football, which you closed. However, I do not want to leave a cross-namespace redirect after completing the merger, so one probably needs some other way of retaining attribution (a redirect-suppressing move sequence or similar, perhaps?) As I am not a page mover, your help would be greatly appreciated! Felix QW (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Felix QW: deleting a cross-namespace redirect would normally be fine, but we need to preserve attribution in this case. Can you ask for a HISTMERGE (I don't do those), and if one isn't feasible the next best option might be preserving history at a different draft title? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
As much as I hate to rag on people who probably don't know better... there never was a copy/paste pagemove, and thus there is nothing to histmerge. The outcome of the AFD was clearly to draftify in some way, but I do not think that a merge is the way. I think it should be done in one of two ways: first option, delete the existing draft and move the existing article there. Second option, move the existing draft to a new title (likely appending a (2) or similar) and moving the existing article in its place. In the second way no one's contributions are deleted, but the outcome of the discussion (draftify) is still satisfied. I do not want to do either without consulting you (the closing admin) for your thoughts. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: I'm not fully conversant with histmerges, so it's likely I've misunderstood something. However: I genuinely don't see how I could have closed the AfD any other way, in that consensus clearly supported draftification at a single title. Both titles had some unique information, and so a merger makes sense to me; if both titles were in mainspace, we would merge and redirect. this edit requires the page history to be preserved, does it not? It's copying content from one title to another, which is what I've understood as the basic reason to preserve edit history...however, I'm not opposed to preserving it at a different draftspace title instead, which as you'll see is the second option I'd suggested above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, just wanted to run it by you first. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Assam Movement

I am editing Assam Movement#Phase III: Election of 1983. I will be happy if you were to participate in it in any way you deem fit. It is an esoteric subject, unfortunately, but it seems to have a relevance for other articles, such as Violence against Muslims in India. Chaipau (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I'm afraid I'm completely swamped with work in RL for the next few days. I can try to look in, but can't do any substantive work I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure, just looking in is good enough. Please keep an eye on NPOV and RS. I shall try my best but this is a very contentious period in Assam and information is scarce. Chaipau (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_46&oldid=1133941149"