Jump to content

User talk:Vanderwaalforces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


icon
Archives (Index)

Member of Oral Tradition taskforce
Vanderwaalforces
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 11, 2026
A content creator and a maintenance worker, with prolific content contributions to Nigeria-related articles (9 FLs, 21 GAs and 11 DYKs!) as well as significant contributions to AfC/NPP including participation in backlog drives. Content related to Nigeria needs work on the English Wikipedia due to WP:Systemic bias and Vanderwaalforces puts in the work to improve those articles. He also operates VWF Bot which helps with Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/VWF bot log as well as helps maintain RfD pages. His CSD log is impressively full of redlinks, and his AfD !votes have a 93.7%(!) match rate. His contributions are overall a net positive to Wikipedia.
Recognized for
prolific content contributions to Nigeria-related articles
Submit a nomination

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2

[edit]
NPP unreviewed article statistics as of February 02, 2026

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

Start patrolling!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction of VWF bot

[edit]

Hi, this edit by VWF bot was incorrect. Please compare the page before the bot edit with that afterwards. They're significantly different: {{sockpuppet|checkuser|...}} is not at all the same as {{sockpuppetcheckuser|...}}. Please fix the bot, also any similar bad edits - I've reverted this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch! Tysm. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Confirming that I hardened my regex and something like this cannot happen again. Thank you, once again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 2

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on Jan 10. Please help translate.

Highlights
Let's Talk continues

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events

"The Birthday Cake Song" is an original song created for Wikipedia's 25th Birthday, performed by the WikiChoir, featuring Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons content.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletin(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 02:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input on the James Ossuary page

[edit]

Hi Vanderwaalforces, I saw that you are active in WP:WREQ and was hoping you would take a look at my recent request on the James Ossuary page. Given your experience with archaeology-related topics, I'd appreciate your expert input. I'm concerned that the language in the lead is misleading; it suggests an ongoing balance of doubt, whereas significant academic and legal developments since 2012 lean heavily toward authenticity. My goal is to ensure the lead reflects the current scholarly consensus rather than outdated accusations.

I would like to point you to these key references:

The Legal Verdict (Criminal Case 482/04): In paragraph 143, Judge Aharon Farkash states: "According to Prof. Krumbein... the patina on the ossuary developed over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and the patina within the inscription and on the ossuary were formed during the same period. Prof. Krumbein’s conclusion in this matter was not refuted and is accepted by me." Furthermore, in paragraph 133, the court accepts that natural patina was found in both parts of the inscription, strengthening the contention that the entire text is genuine.[1] This is also quoted in English in Feldman's book (below).

Academic Publications: Post-trial, the inscription was published as authentic in the prestigious Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae (CIIP) by a team of leading scholars.[2]

Additionally, geo-archaeologist Prof. Howard Feldman, in his comprehensive study (chapters 10-11), concludes: "Judge Aharon Farkash’s verdict... clearly contributes more than ever to the strengthening of the contention that the inscription is genuine."[3]

The current lead pales in comparison to these definitive findings. I look forward to your thoughts on how to make the article more precise and factually up-to-date. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ncyclist26 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ncyclist26, I am sorry, I will not be able to tend to this right now. Please sort things out with the editors trying to review your request there as I think they're making good efforts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "הכרעת דין בתיק ת"פ 482-04". psakdin.co.il. 29 October 2012.
  2. ^ Cotton, Hannah M.; Di Segni, Leah; Eck, Werner (2010). Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae Volume 1, Part 1. De Gruyter. ISBN 9783110222197.
  3. ^ Feldman, Howard R. (2019). Geoarchaeology of Israel. New York: Touro University Press. pp. 145–202. ISBN 9781631816345.

Ncyclist26 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lacina

[edit]

Thank you for your work closing, but that seems like no consensus at the very least. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that. I think the closer made the right call, showing that majority votes may not mean much as arguments and rules. WP:DRV option if the closure isn't reconsidered, eh? George Ho (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WikiOriginal, I honestly (at least from my closing rationale) do not consider that a no consensus, I am pretty confident the redirect (as an ATD-R) side had stronger grounds such that no consensus or keep would have been incorrect. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sarah Lacina

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sarah Lacina. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have overturned your close as the outcome is not reflective of the discussion. Two decent keep votes after a relist can only end one way. Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another bot run fix hopefully

[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you can help me with a bot run to fix another botched template subst of Template:W-shout. I've done one manually here. There are 2,976 pages that need this fix. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I can see that some of them were posted on their user page (instead of the talk page), isn’t that weird? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely. I didn't even notice that. Those obviously don't belong there. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

[edit]

Hey, Vanderwaalforces, I unhappy to say my an newly article was not reviewed by new page patrollers since created. I request to you take a look at my newly article, It could be feel happy to me of you take a look my recently created article. Warm regards Cptabhiimanyuseven •[@píng mє] 08:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions, Cptabhiimanyu. I will take a look when I am able to. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

bot needs a tweak...

[edit]

Bot broke a citation template at this edit (ref 6). |journal= is not the correct parameter for {{cite news}} but regardless, |journal= is an alias of |newspaper=. cs1|2 does not allow more than one of an aliased parameter in any citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, journal! Thanks for letting me know. I wonder why one would use journal param for a cite news template in the first place, lol. But yeah, it’s an alias. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gheesling deletion

[edit]

In the first instance, I am contacting you directly with my opinion on the deletion of this article; if preferred, I am happy to do so via a 'Deletion Review', but thought this may be easier. I apologise for any breaches in Wikipedia etiquette, I am a new user who hopes to learn best practice and become an active contributor to the project. With that being said:


Dan Gheesling deletion review


I am writing in relation to the deletion of [Gheesling&redirect=no|Dan Gheesling’s Wikipedia page] (or, more accurately, the page now redirecting to Big Brother 10 (American Season).

I believe that Dan Gheesling fulfils at least some of the "Notability criteria" such that his page was unjustly deleted. Dan himself has elucidated some of his appearances and notable actions on George Ho's talk page, however I will attempt to address the criteria myself.


Basic criteria for “notability”

As you will be aware, the criteria state that people are “presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. A lack of clarity around the term “significant” leaves the matter somewhat subjective and, with my limited experience on Wikipedia, I have considered this on a “reasonable person” basis as is a common approach applied in common law, a field in which I have considerable experience.

Below are a few examples that I believe would be considered by such a “reasonable person” to render Dan Gheesling “notable”:


As a Big Brother contestant, Dan has been the subject of extensive media coverage from multiple sources that meet the requirements outlined above (i.e. they are 1. Significant, 2. Reliable, 3. Intellectually independent and 4. Independent of the subject).


Below are non-exhaustive lists covering Dan Gheesling’s notable accomplishments. It should be noted that these articles vary vastly in their opinion of Dan Gheesling, demonstrating their independence, both intellectually and from the subject, Dan Gheesling. Some of these articles praise Dan’s performance, while others provide substantial criticism of his feats, for example IMDb describing him as “The worst traitor ever” and Polygon stating Dan had “One last shot to win back my respect”.


Yahoo article

Entertainment Weekly

Daily Mail

RealityTea


As a Traitors contestant:

IMDb

Variety

Vulture

Polygon


As a Twitch Streamer/Youtube personality:

Gamesradar

Dexerto


I am of the opinion that the above more than satisfies the “Basic criteria” for notability. While unconventional, Dan Gheesling’s shift from traditional media as a reality TV personality to an internet personality has resulted in him remaining a relevant public figure.

Furthermore, I believe that reducing his career in the public domain to a redirection to “Big Brother 10” is misleading and misrepresentative of a long and varied career.


Additional Criteria Basic criteria for “notability”

In addition to fulfilling the basic criteria of notability, I note the additional criteria by which a person is “likely to be notable” should they meet any of the standards.


Traitors Emmy: Traitors Season 2 won the Emmy for ‘Outstanding Reality Competition Program’. I would argue that any participant in the “Reality Competition” is, to some extent, responsible for the critical acclaim the show receives. Had the show had entirely different contestants, it is highly likely that it would not have received the same plaudits. Furthermore, in the case of Dan Gheesling, his inclusion in the series contributed to the “star power” and his presence was more significant on the show than many of the other competitors.

While I accept there is a large degree of speculation, I believe this to be relevant to the matter at hand insofar as it contributes to the case for Wikipedia page reinstatement.


“Entertainer”


Another additional criterion for notability relates to the person having “significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows … or other notable productions”.

In the plainest terms, it is evident that Dan has appeared in multiple notable television shows. A large degree of subjectivity arises from the definition of “notable”, however I believe that his role in The Revengers as well as his ongoing livestream show puts him over-and-above the threshold of “notable”.


In assessing Dan Gheesling’s notability, I have had due regard to the “invalid criteria” and am of the opinion that neither of the points raised in this paragraph are of relevance to Dan Gheesling. He is a notable person in his own right  and is not subject to any search engine manipulation as far as I am aware (with one minor exception - he is one of the top image results when the term “normal human person” is entered into Google. I believe this to be irrelevant to the matter at hand).

On a personal level, I am concerned as to the nature of the discussion required prior to deletion of an article. Contained within the Articles for deletion discussion, highly subjective and speculative remarks as to Dan Gheesling’s contributions were made. The conversation between George Ho and Asteramellus appeared to arrive at wholly unbased and incorrect conclusions:


“To counter your interpretation of WP:ENT, this person made just two significant roles but only in Big Brother. His role in The Traitors wasn't that significant probably. If it were, probably his past Big Brother win must've caused him to be eliminated early there. Even then, his amount of roles isn't that plenty enough to meet the first criterion of ENT. I've yet to see evidence that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” ~ George Ho


“Thanks George Ho. WP:ENTERTAINER points are either 1 or 2, and it seems he meets #1. However, I think there is lack of significant independent coverage - looking again at reliable sources, seems coverage is mostly tied to Big Brother 10 - did not see much sustained coverage. So, agree with the redirect.” ~ Asteramellus


The above exchange demonstrates the lack of understanding of the criteria by the proposer; as remarked upon by user Asteramellus, the criteria for an entertainer very clearly states 1 or 2 must be true, a person need not satisfy both facets of the criteria.


This is, of course, irrelevant given that Dan Gheesling already fulfils the Basic criteria, despite the incorrect conclusion of user Asteramellus that the coverage is mostly tied to Big Brother 10 - there is extensive and sustained coverage of Dan Gheesling’s other exploits in the public arena.

It deeply saddens me that Wikipedia is being administered in such a way that important information is being deleted with little scrutiny of the decisions and with flagrant disregard to the standards by which notable people are to be judged.


In summation, I believe that I have demonstrated that the reasonable person would consider Dan Gheesling to be of sufficient note as to warrant the existence of his own Wikipedia article. He evidently meets the criteria outlined for being a notable person by Wikipedia’s standards.

I strongly believe that the reduction of Dan Gheesling’s article to a mere redirection to the main article for Big Brother 10 is highly misrepresentative as it gives the false impression that Dan Gheesling is only known for his appearance on Big Brother 10, giving no regard to the other reality TV shows he has appeared on, nor his extensive public online presence. This would be akin to having an article for Donald Trump redirect to an article for The Apprentice; While not strictly incorrect, it would omit a huge amount of information, resulting in something tantamount to misinformation and flies directly in the face of Wikipedia's mission.

I appreciate your time in consideration of this matter and look forward to your response in due course.

Kind regards, Hambuster1 Hambuster1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hambuster1 I am not willing to give this wall of text a read. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, long story short, I think the Dan Gheesling page was incorrectly deleted. The wall of text is my opinion on it, I would be grateful to hear your opinion as to why it was deleted. Hambuster1 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the discussion in question and I happen to be the closer; there was a clear consensus to redirect that article to the target, but if you think otherwise, I advise you to try WP:DRV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, I'll go down that route instead. I believe the consensus is somewhat misguided. Hambuster1 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:DRV notice|Dan Gheesling}} <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Hambuster1 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hambuster1: As I see, you've yet to figure out how to use the WP:Deletion review process well. The above one proves my point... methinks. George Ho (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George,
No - I have no idea how to use this function, I don't think this affects the veracity of my argument for reinstatement of the Dan Gheesling article, methinks. I would appreciate your help in this matter if you would be so kind.
Thanks in advance! Hambuster1 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanderwaalforces&oldid=1338724340"