This is Vanamonde93's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the Arab–Israeli conflict Eastern Europe or the Balkans climate change pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hi, why is this page so short and not detailed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_M%C3%BCller. 5.91.27.87 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the only real answer is that nobody has bothered to write a longer and more detailed version. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I'm intervening in your discussion. If someone wants to help me, I could take care of it; I can't do it completely on my own. JackkBrown (Talk) 21:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I'm sorry, what exactly would you like me to do here? If you want assistance writing about Ger Muller, I'm afraid I don't have the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant if I could get some help, on inserting sources; the rest I am capable of doing. JackkBrown (Talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEHOW tells you how to format sources; if you need help finding sources, however, I suggest asking the football Wikiproject. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! JackkBrown (Talk) 22:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article India: The Modi Question, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the BBC documentary India: The Modi Question, which examines the career of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, was banned in India? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/India: The Modi Question. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, India: The Modi Question), 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February songs

my daily stories

Thank you today for Theodora Kroeber, performed in collaboration, about a "writer, psychologist, and anthropologist. Referred to sometimes as the wife of well-known anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Theodora built her own reputation as an author after starting to write in her fifties."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vanamonde, great to see Kroeber on the front page at last! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! I really enjoyed writing this with the indomitable SusunW, so it's my pleasure. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Gerda earlier, you did the heavy lifting Vanamonde, I just tried to give her dimension and context within her era. It was a fun collaboration, at any rate. Mayhaps we'll do a repeat in the future. SusunW (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind; you did the work I struggle with :) I'd love to do another someday. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we made a good team. I struggle with the part you did. My brain always wants to understand what made someone do what they did. Context is everything for me and people have to be more than one-dimensional. (My dad's nickname for me as a kid, unsurpringly, was "Why".) SusunW (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Another Lead on Recent Stumink Sock Drawer.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Upon my own further investigation, there seems to be even more overlap than I previously thought--Nettless and user in question both heavily editing James Madison, and Greencows and this user both editing Cecil Rhodes in a similar manner in addition to information included in the original email. --Hobomok (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobomok: A lot of socks were CU-blocked, so if there are others they weren't caught be the CU and would need to be connected behaviorally. If you have evidence of such, I encourage you to submit it at SPI. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes The Wordsmith Fuhghettaboutit Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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, 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! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Recently you have deleted Parul Mishra Wikipedia page. I like to highlight few things:

1. NMusic #1 is meeting along with GNG. Please find the below reliable independent reference which show significant coverage.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/parul-mishra-the-folk-music-of-india-should-not-lose-its-relevance/articleshow/72866428.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/padma-vibhushan-pt-birju-maharaj-is-impressed-with-singer-parul-mishras-new-album/articleshow/72934239.cms

2. NMusic #10: Had sung in movies like Ada... A way of life, Hum bhi akele Tum bhi akele, Thalaivii, and few web series like Aspirants, Flames. All these movies and web series are notable and have Wikipedia articles and their music are on renowned music label. Besides she has been a part of few reality show like sa re ga ma pa 2012 and MTV Rock on which are again notable and have their Wikipedia page too.

3. NMusic 8#: Awarded with Naushaad Sangeet Samman award presented by Govt of UP. Renowned and world famous artistes like Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, Kalyanji- Anandji, Khayyam, Pt Shiv Kumar sharma, Hema Malini, Rekha Bhardwaj, Sonu Nigam, Talat Aziz etc have been awarded with this prestigious award, all being notable and have Wikipedia have their pages According to few editors only music awards like Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammys award are notable, so if that the case then India and many more country don't have any notable music awards.. I like to bring it to your attention that the names mentioned should be treated as an example and not as a final list of music award across global.

4. A Google search of the Subject : Parul Mishra, shows significant search results. And the subject have been listed on IMDb, Spotify, apple Music, JioSaavn, wynk.

5. As an author I have put a hell lot of efforts on this Wikipedia article. Have done lots of research on the subject and put lots of effort and lots of times, just because of my love towards Wikipedia. But if this page got deleted, my effort and times all will go in vain which is really disappointed for a editor who believes in expanding the Wikipedia with good articles.

So I kindly request you to please restore the page and I take the sole responsibility of improving the article with time to time basic.

Thanks for understanding. Risu43 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. You presented all these arguments at the deletion discussion, but Consensus in that discussion was clearly against keeping the article. I can't overturn that just because you put effort into it, though I recognize you may be feeling disappointment. I would suggest you find other things to work on, and to keep an eye out for more sources in the meantime. With a young artiste, it's not unlikely that better sources will emerge, which you can use to build a better article. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request you to relist it again for the final discussion. I will accept whatever will be the outcome. Risu43 (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've relisted, but I wouldn't hold out much hope. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please clarify here Talk:Afghanistan–India relations#RSEDITORIAL whether WP:RSEDITORIAL's "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." means the authors/editors of the oped itself. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to involve me in that discussion, Gotitbro? I've never participated on that page that I can remember, and I haven't the time to dig into the sources in detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just wanted a basic policy clarification from an uninvolved admin. I had no intention to pester you (thought you had not been pinged correctly). Gotitbro (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did get the ping, but it's too involved a discussion for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worried by your willingness to delete such articles. In theory, I agree that an ambassador can be non-notable, if there is genuinely no significant coverage anywhere to be found, but almost always there is. We seem to have a small clack of deletionists who are able to agree with each other in this area, but not one of them stops to improve the articles. "Consensus" seems to me to be meaningless if it is just a head-count of people with negative views on the notability of ambassadors in general. Moonraker (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Consensus isn't determined by a head count, but by strength of argument. If you feel ambassadors are inherently notable, that's a proposal you should take to VPP or WT:N. The arguments you've presented that I recall had to do with GNG, and those arguments were convincingly rebutted. I couldn't close the AfDs otherwise even if I wanted to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I do not agree that anything I have said was "convincingly" rebutted. Do you have a diff? There are deletionists at work who seem to be pushing a kind of Social Justice Warrior agenda here, for some reason targetting mainly British ambassadors. Thanks to their international duties, I do think there is a better case for ambassadors to be treated as inherently notable than (say) members of national parliaments. That is not where we are, but it is absurd to allow deletionists to argue that being an ambassador is a reason for deletion. I am glad you say consensus is not determined by a head-count, but by argument. But I am seeing a lot of head counting and almost nothing said by people closing Afds about what is the strength of any argument.

I really think we should require the editor closing an Afd to give reasons for deciding it one way or another, rather than "The consensus was..." Moonraker (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that being an ambassador is a reason for deletion; they're arguing that being an ambassador isn't in and of itself a reason to keep. If you're seeing an SJW agenda here, I suggest you either take it to AN/ANI, or stop complaining about it. If you feel ambassadors are inherently notable, then propose that at VPP. Otherwise, WP:SIGCOV is the standard we use, and if the provided sources are shown to be database entries or passing mentions, then those sources are held not to be sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Vanamonde. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i checked the source till the end and it doesn't say “muslim minority was blamed in the riots” i think it should be removed according to WP:V RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which source did you check? The Washington Post says "The killings were blamed on Muslim perpetrators, and Hindu mobs retaliated by rampaging through Muslim communities." It's not really controversial; most sources giving an overview of the 2002 riots will say this; they just don't also discuss the documentary, and so are not used. Also; this should be discussed on the article talk page if you have further concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this one [1] RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this source is inline cited in the text and doesn't have text you mentioned. please mention the source you are talking about. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps not have full access to that source? It's in there, plain as can be. At the end of the 11th paragraph, which begins "In the hour-long first segment, the BBC focused on the Indian leader’s early career"... Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the guidance, yes i don't have access and looked through the archive and found the lines. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March songs

my story today

Thank you today for Starship Troopers, introduced (in 2017): "This article is about a hugely popular, hugely influential, and hugely controversial science fiction novel from 1959. It has been through a GA review, and has also had its reception section looked over by Mike Christie, who knows what's what with science-fiction. Since then I've been over the prose again, and have added more views from commentators to the article. Between the large number of sci-fi authors and scholars, I believe I have covered every significant theme among reliable sources."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was curious if you'd be interested in helping me with my first FAC nom. I'm looking to promote the article Rafael Quispe and figured that your proficiency in recent political history and previous experience with Latin American biographies would make you best-suited to assist. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisgabwoosh: Thanks for asking; this would indeed be something I'd be interested in. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time right now; I have far too many RL commitments, and what little time I have for Wikipedia needs to be spent on things I've already committed to. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, no worries! I'll see about exploring other options. Any recommendations on who you'd think would be interested in this sort of project? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I honestly don't know what the real reason for deleting the article was. Although there is a tie between the two parties (5 with deletion and 5 with the move to a more suitable title). Can anyone deny that the rate of violence between the two parties has increased exponentially about a year ago? Does everything that happens enter into the usual cycle of violence for 74 years? The Israeli side even called what is happening a military operation that has been taking place since the same period that was mentioned in the info box and the context of the article. So where is the original research and SYNTH they claim. Why wasn't the discussion closed a week ago when it was clear that the desire was to move the article, not to delete it entirely? Sakiv (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: I explained the reasoning quite clearly. If, as you say, "the rate of violence between the two parties has increased exponentially about a year ago", then it should be easy to provide sources covering that increase in violence. You did not provide such sources. I can't speak to why the discussion wasn't closed sooner, because I saw it today, saw a clear consensus, and closed it. Please read our description of consensus; headcounts don't matter much if the arguments on one side are weaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then this article has become my personal property, and I am the only one who claims that the escalating violence is clearly visible, and every week there is a massacre. More trivial events generate entire articles about them and editors pour in at lightning speed, but this is not. I no longer understand what is happening in this project. Well no problem.--Sakiv (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Palestinian intifada (2022–present). 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. Sakiv (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could I ask for further explanation of the final paragraph, i.e. "there is also consensus that the closure did not reflect the substance of the discussion"? I think anybody looking at the entire process since last year would take the rather obvious conclusion that there was no consensus for the move. I think from a numerical perspective there was probably more people arguing the no consensus closure was incorrect, but that's clearly more down to some form of tag team editing in the I/P space rather than actual community consensus. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. While I recognize that there's tag-team editing in the IP area (believe me, I'm well aware; I've worked as an admin at AE for quite a while) I don't think you can therefore conclude that everywhere there's disagreement there's no consensus. Also, a new discussion should be just that, else we'd never allow repeat discussions; I don't think it's reasonable to combine arguments from multiple move requests. There were substantive arguments, on both sides of the discussion, which needed evaluation with respect to policy; your closure didn't include such an evaluation, and several folks at the MRV said so. Also, when arguments are evenly matched on the policy, numerical tilt does matter; I don't think you can just ascribe it to tag-teaming. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, by just putting the cutoff of the entire process to the RM starting January 6th, you're effectively rewarding disruptive editing. A closure of a discussion clearly does not mean that the arguments in them become immediately spent; otherwise, people would just create never-ending discussions until they got the result they wanted. The only way one could make a determination other than "no consensus" is by completely disregarding a good half of the RM. I recommend that you re-evaluate the MRV with respect to the entire move process; else, I'm very minded to ask for review at AARV. Sceptre (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]