Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence phase of Indian military history extended by three days

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for J. K. Rowling

[edit]

User:Adam Cuerden has nominated J. K. Rowling 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Kasriel

[edit]

FYI Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_17#Stephane_Kasriel I bet you had already forgotten abut this kasrilik :-).--Altenmann >talk 21:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remember redirecting that, no. Blanking-and-redirecting is a common method for dealing with non-notable subjects - restoring it at RfD doesn't seem particularly useful to me, why not delete the redirect? But then I don't work at RfD. @Rusalkii: you do RfD things: I'm wondering why it's looking like this needs to go to AfD after RfD...Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have unfortunately stumbled upon the RfD controversy du jour. It is a common but not uncontested opinion that any redirect with substantial history that was unilaterally BLARed cannot be deleted "out of process" by RfD, and must be sent to a venue equipped to evaluate notability of the underlying article rather than just the quality of the redirect. In my experience things usually close this way if it was a recent BLAR, older ones are more variable and seem to depend in large part on who stumbles on the RfD before it closes. I recently just sent a newly BLARed redirect to AfD instead of borthering to restore a low-quality article or RfD it first, I got some raised eyebrows and Twinkle threw a fit but I do endorse this action as having saved everyone some hassle. Rusalkii (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the question because (a) the redirect in question is meaningless today (b) now the guy moved to Meta, so quite possibly his notability increased, (c) this name is used in wp elsewhere and I like things to be interconnected. (d) On my memory, several times blanking/redirecting was done after a chain of vandalism, so I got a habit to look into article history. Curiosity killed the cat :-) --Altenmann >talk 16:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we want to avoid creating a backdoor to deletion, but also if a prod-tag uncontested for a week is sufficient for deletion then you'd think a BLAR that was uncontested for seven years would be, too. I suppose I'll watchlist this, and send it to AfD if it is restored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, y'all forced me to do "due diligence" and I see that he seems to accumulate WP:GNG, e.g., [1], [2]. BTW, I love him described "musical chairs winner", which matches my perception "wandering VIP" :-) --Altenmann >talk 17:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the argument goes that (1) PRODs are patrolled by people interested in deletion and clearly signposted, while BLARs are not and (2) the decision to BLAR is explicitly a decision to take an alternative to deletion and preserve the history, and one shouldn't delete that history out of process. I have also seen the case that the act of nominating something for RfD is contesting the BLAR, even when you are contesting the "redirect" rather than "blank" part of it, and so itself merits taking the BLAR to AfD. I think. I find this part of the argument confusing and may be misinterpreting it. Rusalkii (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR was good that the moment of the moment. Now the redirect became confusing and useless, hence my RfD. An alternative would be a dab page, "Kastiel may refer to: *VIP at PayPal *CEO of Upwork; *CGO at Meta" :-) --Altenmann >talk 17:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Altenmann, it's possible there's a case for notability here, but those sources aren't it: see WP:FORBESCON. I do agree the current target is suboptimal, but a retarget can be bold - it doesn't require an RfD unless it's contested, right?. Rusa, I suppose I can see the argument that BLARs are not patrolled, and they have indeed been used for end-runs around deletion process. So that's fair. Still seems like a venue issue though (sorry Rusa, just thinking out loud here). If the mere act of opening an RfD is contesting a BLAR that can only be evaluated at AfD, then the remaining seven days of RfD are a waste of time by definition. We ought to be able to finesse this process, perhaps by clarifying when restoring-and-AFDing is the better option. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd really like to see more clarity around all of this so that we can avoid the two sets of RfD discussions and endless arguments about whether it is appropriate to delete meaningful history at RfD. If you're interested in this, some of the more recent discussion on the issue was at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_4#Breeing. Rusalkii (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the "meaningful history". I was not aware of FORBESCON. Therefore I am sorry I stirred the mud in the puddle rather than stood at my initial nom. But I do not see your votes at the RfD, once you two clarified your positions in this chat. Or not? --Altenmann >talk 23:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies necessary: you're acting in good faith. But I don't really have anything to say at RfD, since per Rusalkii the position seems to be that only AfD can determine notability, and I don't care about the fate of the redirect as such. If someone were to suggest retargeting I might support that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is not uniformly the position and there's a nontrivial chance it'll close as delete, I've seen that happen too. Rusalkii (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literary analysis and Rowling

[edit]

I object to cutting the literary analysis. I apologise for not engaging in the discussion, wherever it is on that monster page. I confess I am a little frustrated by the way it has gone from discussion about one word to a sudden requirement that the whole page be rewritten at the behest of one editor, with forked discussions across several fora, and I am disinclined to jump into all of these areas as though it is suddenly an "emergency" (as I saw it characterised). My time is limited and this is not my area of expertise. However, let me be clear that the section I have edited to date is not the one I want to be editing (ever). If you can point me to where to the appropriate section I will opine (briefly) on literary analysis. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a suspicion a lot of the editors engaged at the 2022 FAR would be similarly opposed, but it wouldn't be appropriate to selectively ping them, and I imagine many of them are also sick of the whole affair. My understanding is that this and this are the most recent discussions on the topic. But SandyGeorgia is more on top of this mess than I am. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are the accurate links to the current discussions, but the haphazard approach to the FAR page, with multiple sections covering the same thing, make it hard to keep up. There are too many issues raised by one editor and where I am the only editor responding, so I'm not sure if doing this makes sense any longer. Sifur, you've never been at FAR before, but that page is better used to keep the Coords informed if work is progressing and what WIAFA issues remain or are addressed, while work is better undertaken on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I posted on that one as Victoriaearle had. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saishna96

[edit]

hello @Vanamonde93, Please refer to This for Thesazh. Thankyou. 2405:201:C410:3058:3126:D75D:E493:FAE8 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Deleteion of old spam versions

[edit]

Hey, Can you delete from the history the following old versions written by me: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Address_Downtown&oldid=697626355 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Address_Downtown&oldid=697626588 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathieu_Debuchy&oldid=699995844 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kylian_Mbapp%C3%A9&oldid=921618554

I don't want users to see this (it is old). Thanks. Alex 121 Alex (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits are borderline with respect to revision deletion, and even if I hid them, administrators would still be able to see them. If you do not wish to be associated with your old edits, you are eligible for a clean start. Please read that policy page and decide if that is right for you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. Can you hid those edits so only administrators will be able to see them? Thanks. Alex 121 Alex (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers

[edit]

Hello again. I noticed that you deleted List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers. I know admins have access to deleted articles, to could you please restore the top 15 of that list to the FIFA Club World Cup records and statistics under a section of "top goal scorers". Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such a merger would require attribution. I have undeleted the list and redirected it: you may make the merger you suggest, but please read WP:CWW before doing so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You undeleted the List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers. I was talking about List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers, which was also pinned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers. Thanks you so much for your cooperation. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did not notice that was a bundled AfD. Should be fixed now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Graf

[edit]

Hello... did you know that Peter Graf is the second-biggest prominent tax evader in Germany?

Do you think this is a hook good/interesting enough for DYK? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 22:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

[edit]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

[edit]

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors' June 2025 Newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors June 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2025 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Hall of Fame: Congratulations to Dhtwiki for their well-deserved addition to the Hall of Fame last month, and thanks to GoldRomean for the nomination.

Election news: Voting in the mid-year coordinator election ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.

April Blitz: 14 of the 25 editors who signed up for the April 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 92,769 words in 30 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

May Drive: 31 of the 54 editors who signed up for the May 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited 384,392 words in 216 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

June Blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 26,652 words in 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

July Drive: Our July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive will begin on 1 July and finish on 31 July. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 02:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 148 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,270 articles.

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note of appreciation

[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for undertaking the undesirable task of closing the :bloodofox: ANI thread, which must have involved a non-trivial amount of time to review and consider. I'm sure there will be plenty who are not entirely satisfied with the result, but at the end of the day, I don't see how you could have found consensus for any other outcome, given the diversity and relative weight of perspectives on the proposals. And at least any time sink with regard to the discussion itself is now at an end, with as much degree of resolution as could be found there.

In any event, it was overdue for a close and I thank you for stepping up to it. SnowRise let's rap 23:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the note. It was definitely a case where there was much clearer agreement on the problem than on the solution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I nipped over here for the same reason. Having read the whole mess from day one and watched its development with growing horror and awe, I was wondering what brave soul would possibly take on a close like that. *doffs hat* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • July 9–15 - Call for candidates
  • July 18–22 - Discussion phase
  • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
  • The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=1299639277"