Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

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

Please comment on Talk:Israel

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

Women in Red World Contest

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

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

Tawana Brawley rape allegations

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

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

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

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

Rapidfire band 1983

Hello, I'm inquiring about the reason for the Rapidfire band page deletion. It was explained to me that it was deleted because of page seemed only notable because of Axl Rose's participation. The band and its members, particularly the songwriter, guitarist and owner of the music has been featured in many news sites, and not just exclusive to music news: https://www.maxim.com/entertainment/what-its-play-and-be-sued-axl-rose, http://metalsludge.tv/rapid-fire-guitarist-kevin-lawrence/, http://loudwire.com/kevin-lawrence-rapidfire-dies-at-51/, http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kevin-lawrence-dies/, and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmny (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnmy: I deleted the article because of a consensus reached at the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapidfire. If you can clearly demonstrate that the band is in fact notable, I'd suggest creating a draft of the article, and then using the Articles for Creation process to move it to the mainspace. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Have You Protected The Episode Guide For Loud House Indefinitely?

Hello there Vanamonde93.

Do you know anything about The Loud House a Nicktoon created by Chris Savino that has been airing since May 2, 2016? If so you might be a fan of that show or not.

The main premise of the aforementioned show is about an 11 year old boy named Lincoln who has 10 sisters making him the only male of the huge family.

Almost every episode had him breaking the fourth wall by talking to the viewer directly at the screen. But the pilot was just a test to have it green lit for a new series.

Fast forward to December 2 of the preceding year. You may be the one who protected the episode guide for the show indefinitely. Long term wouldn't get expired sometime soon.

Anyways have a response about this.

Good night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

National Front FAC

Hi Vanamonde; hope that you are well. As you showed an interest in the Referendum Party article when I was pushing it through the FAC process this time last year, I wondered if you might be interested in taking a look at another article on a UK political party that I have at FAC: National Front (UK). So far, the FAC (here) has not attracted much attention, and if you did have the time and/or inclination your comments would be appreciated. There is, of course, no pressure on you to do so if you're too busy or just not interested. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl, nice to see you around. I'd be happy to take a look, but it might take me a couple of days. Best, Vanamonde (talk)
That would be appreciated, Vanamonde. Of course, if there is any way in which I can return the favour, do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

On "Biko"

Finally, I feel vindicated. It's well-known history that "Biko" always started with "Ngomhla sibuyayo" and ended with "Senzeni na" - in the album version, at least. Now, and this isn't gloating, it can be seen that Drewett researched it wrong. Though that means that my edits are now under yours, it at least vindicates and validates what I've been saying all along; history, aural and by Bowman's correct research, proved my original edits right.


FRANCO FERRER-SAN MIGUEL/HamadaFanFFSM(talk)

@HamadaFanFFSM: Yes, you were indeed correct, and I thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I hope you see now, though, what I was saying then: I was not necessarily convinced that you were wrong, but we do need sources for the change, and can't just write what we know to be correct. Vanamonde (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Jonny Ferrari"

Hello, I see that an article I created has been deleted for the reason of not passing the general notability guidelines. I would like to request access to a version of this article that I can continue to edit, as I have new references to add. If possible, a review of the sources I have cited and their applicability to the notability guidelines will serve well to improve this article. These following references I would like to add now: https://calvinayre.com/2017/07/05/business/jonny-ferrari-cambodia-gaming-corrupt/ & https://calvinayre.com/2017/07/05/business/ca-rundown-july-5-video/ .If you look in the history of the deleted article, there are edits where some references I added were removed by other users. I am unsure why these references were deleted, and I would like to request clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar P1 (talk • contribs)

@Superstar P1: The article was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonny Ferrari. I cannot speak to why references were removed from the article; you will have to ask those who removed them. I have restored the page and moved it to User:Superstar_P1/Jonny_Ferrari, where you may work on it. However, since the consensus against its notability was strong, you need to improve it substantially before considering moving it back to mainspace, and I would recommend using the articles for creation process when you are done with your edits. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for that link to the restored page I can edit. I have links for DVDs sold by the wrestling promotions featuring Jonny Ferrari, but I am not sure how to properly cite a wrestling promotion's DVD release. Also, Jonny Ferrari appears on wrestling video on demand service but I am not sure how to cite that either.Can you inform me of how to cite such sources? I will also contact other users who participated in the discussion to determine why the references I have added so far do not suffice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar P1 (talk • contribs)
@Superstar P1: A few points: it's possibly that there's a specific format for citing DVDs, but I'm not going to go looking for it, because basically you should be citing those sources. Please read WP:RS. The problem with the sources you mention is that they are seeking to promote their sport and the players of it, making them unreliable sources. To demonstrate notability, you need to find sources that are reliable and independent of their subject. I have no knowledge of wrestling, but perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling can help you with identifying such sources. Also, please sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion: Swiggy

Current Swiggy wiki page is redirected to personal user account address which is incorrect redirect and need to be reverted back.


The reasons provided for page deletion are also outdated(dated 2016). Swiggy is already one of the unicorn startups of India and quite popular and thus they deserve a wiki page. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naman gt (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Namah gt. The page was deleted in 2016 as the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiggy. I cannot unilaterally overturn that decision. I moved the page to User:Aurorion/Swiggy not to remove it (it was already deleted) but to provide that user with a copy in their userspace, which they could work on at their leisure. If you feel that the page should exist, the best way to go about it might be to work with that user to make the draft acceptable for the mainspace, or to recreate the page yourself. Please remember that any new article needs to comply with our policies on notability, verifiability, and not being a means of promotion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Hello you have protected this article. My question : is it possible to quote the JVL making its "self-promotion", saying that "The Jewish Virtual Library relies on history books, scientific studies, various encyclopedias, archives, polls, maps, and material from museums" notes 5 and 6 ? It is a primary source and it is biased.

Is it possible to quote one single text from CNN or any other journal, and say the JVL is regularly cited by CNN, NYT etc ? I think it is an original research based on primary sources. יניב הורון didn't answer me ; he has been topic-banned today from the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Thank you for your answer.--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:A409:5D21:A34A:6D12 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I have protected the page because there was conflict on it related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IPs and new editors are not permitted to edit articles related to the conflict. I have no particular wish to get involved in a contentious content dispute there; however, in general, contentious information should be based on independent secondary sources. Vanamonde (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I didn't know that IPs are not permitted to edit some articles ; the fact is that I had no technical problem to edit. ANd I thought that, as you say, "contentious information should be based on independent secondary sources", this is why I removed the notes 5 and 6. יניב הורון reinserted them. Is it normal ? I don't want to insist, you do what you think is fair.--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:4B9:653F:3FE8:6A04 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid IPs and new editors are not permitted to edit some articles and topics: see WP:ARBPIA3 for more details. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnu Puran (TV series)

I'm not sure I can endorse your close of this. The discussion was open for 38 days, and for most of that time the tally varied from unanimous consensus to delete to 4-2 in favour of deletion, in which the two against were serial "keepist" editors who almost never !vote any other way, making bogus arguments which were immediately discredited and they refused to defend. The third "keep" !vote showed 37 days after the nomination and was similar to the previous two except that there was no time to respond to it.

This kind of close looks like you were waiting for another "keep" so you could close as no consensus without deleting. I'm sure that's not the case and it's just an unfortunate coincidence (and I'm being completely sincere in that; it's kinda difficult to avoid an air of sarcasm while complying with AGF in matters like this, but it's also difficult to word a description of the problematic timing of the close relative to final drive-by !vote without seeming to imply bad faith on your part, so this puts me in a really awkward position of having to say "believe me, I'm not blaming you"), and I'm not that bothered by it either way, but after what happened at another AFD some time back that I did have a lot invested in (where the AFD was 5-2 in favour of deletion, with one of the two clearly in bad faith, but it was kept open just long enough for it to shift to 6-4 because of a couple of drive-by commenters and then get closed as probably the worst "no consensus" result I've ever seen, and it never occurred to me to use deletion review) on principle I think it's a bad idea to let things like this go.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this Talk page is on my watchlist, or why I noticed this in particular. It's not my area, and I would not have found my way to the AFD, but offhand I would think any scripted TV series with 124 episodes would be notable. FWIW.
However, that is different than judging whether the close was an appropriate summary. User:Hijiri88, it is my impression that there should be more use of deletion review in general. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Doncram: If you reed through the discussion, you'll see I'm in complete agreement with you, but WP:TNT applies here, as it did there. In over a month, our biggest guns couldn't touch it, as Captain America would say, so the only options are to blank prety much everything in the article in order to drain the swamp, which would leave the way open for the same thing to happen again, or even for disruptive editors to revert just for the hell of it (again, as happened last time), or to delete and hope that one day someone will find sources and write a proper article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I'm pretty convinced the reason DR isn't used as much as it is because of the inscrutable manner the process page was arranged, which I have now attempted to fix. Hopefully it sticks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88, what was that fix attempt? I don't see you in recent edit history there. What I thought it might be about is something else. Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#misdirection about what decision is being reviewed. --Doncram (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It was a close call between "delete" and "no consensus", to be sure, but a) the discussion had been open for too long, and relisting was not an option and b) the fact that it was so close was itself an indicator that there wasn't consensus. Also, the "there's no sources" argument to delete was fleshed out, but the TNT argument was not fleshed out as much. Or to put it another way: I'm quite certain I'm more likely to be hauled to DRV for a "delete" close, and I would have a harder time defending a "delete" close, too. A "no consensus" close implies no prejudice against speedy renomination; sending it in for AfD round 2 might be more productive than DRV, but you're welcome to try either, because I'm afraid I couldn't justify changing my close. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory

I was looking at this one when you deleted. Please restore. The creator had had it restored as a WP:REFUND as recently as 6 March. The G13 tag was only placed today and the creator has not edited for a week so has probably not even had a chance to challenge it. There was also an MFD in 2016 on this that concluded it was notable and should be kept. SpinningSpark 17:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: done. I'm not sure why the creator's activity should matter, as the page would be restored upon request if they became active and wanted to work on it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
My point was that the prod is supposed to be left in place for seven days to give editors a chance to respond. This one was in place for less than an hour. SpinningSpark 17:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: It wasn't a PROD, though, it was a G13 speedy deletion...Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh my mistake, but this nominator is still causing a problem manually mass nominating pages. I just found another math one with exactly the same history and Draft:Leo Lipinski was edited very recently. I'm going to ask him to stop. SpinningSpark 17:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Well, the threshold for G13 eligibility is six months, and the nominator is waiting that long. There's an argument to be made that viable drafts shouldn't be deleted at all, but really that needs to be taken to the community rather than a single editor. Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of User Permissions

Dear Sir/Madam I see that you are an admin actively involved with granting permissions. I wish to have permissions removed from my account as I no longer have the time to be of consistent and continual benefit Wikipedia - those rights are - Rollbacker, Pending Changes and New Page Reviewer. Many thanks XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Xyzspaniel: These user rights are not likely to get in the way of anything, but in the spirit of NOBIGDEAL I have removed them as requested. Let me know if you would like the flags back at some point. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent rollback grant

Hi Vanamonde93, I hope you are well. I recently noticed that you granted rollback to 6Packs, but I am concerned about the quality of reverts we're seeing and was a bit surprised to see rollback being granted to a user who began editing five days ago. While I don't doubt that their efforts are in good faith, I do not believe that they yet have the experience to use rollback, and a number of problematic reverts have caught my eye. From their five uses of rollback so far:

Based on these reverts, as well as some of their reverts prior to receiving rollback (e.g. this revert and subsequent warning), I thought I might bring this to you – any thoughts? Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thine Antique Pen thank you for pinging and bringing this to my attention. I must say, considering your bringing this up that my thinking in the instance was that the addition of the Russian name is because no edit summary was given to state if and/or if the added name was indeed correct. Wikipedia requires we specify through edit summary our actions. In this case both you and I don't know if the added Russian name was indeed the correct name. Therefore, I thought the best was to undo it since no such explanation was given. On the Vietnam conflict, if my English serves me right, you say atleast a certain number of people were killed because the number is not precise. In this instance, the IP user said 5 killed which in the source doesn't clarify. On the issue of the Economy of Bolivia, my understanding is that the article explains about the economy of the South American country and already a caption detailing Agriculture and Mining is attached to the photo. Additionally, the two cases of mining and agriculture are explained in detail in the paragraph that follows after the photo. The IP user added lost to Paraguay during the chico war a caption which in my understanding doesn't have anything to do with the economy of Bolivia and is merely a case of vandalism. After, I left the IP user a message of disruptive editing as you have rightly cited that I warned them because I believe & still believe it was disruptive of them to do that. I have been fighting Vandalism since I joined and the number of edits I made are in high consideration before making such decisions. However, this doesn't mean I have not flawed, I have made mistakes and continously learning and hope to continue making Wikipedia better. I hope my point of view with regards to my reasoning in these actions helps you understand 6Packs (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Thine Antique Pen: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I use popups to check account age: in this case, I clearly misread something, and that is my mistake. I did check the accuracy of their reverts fairly thoroughly, and found nothing amiss. The diffs you have brought do give me pause. I don't want to follow up with a knee-jerk reaction, so 6Packs, I'd give you the following advice; do not use rollback on anything that could be reasonably perceived as a good-faith edit. This is a much lower bar than "unhelpful edit" or even "incorrect edit". I do a fair amount of recent-changes patrol; the proportion of times I have used rollback, rather than twinkle, is quite limited, and it should be for you, too. TAP, please feel free to message me if there are any other problems. Vanamonde (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I'll try and keep an eye on their reverts - hopefully there won't be any problems in the future. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion mistake?

Hi there, I think you deleted the deletion discussion page for BharatBala Productions by mistake instead of the actual article. Or something to that matter. So now that article has an AfD notice without the corresponding discussion page. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: It might seem that way, but it wasn't actually a mistake; the AfD was tagged for CSD#G7 by Winged Blades of Godric soon after they nominated it, presumably as a means to save everyone time and trouble because they felt the nom to be in error. There was no deletion discussion. I've now removed the notice, too. Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so it was a notice that was left behind. I couldn't figure out what was amiss so I asked away. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Vanamonde (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I need to request you that please delete page User:F a v o n i a n. F a v o n i a n. as the deletion reason "Mass deletion of pages added by F a v o n i a n. F a v o n i a n." as it was created by the blocked (or banned user). Thank you. 122.162.93.195 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. It's the blank userpage of a globally locked user. What purpose does this serve, precisely? Vanamonde (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Continuation of "Request for deletion"

That user page (User:F a v o n i a n. F a v o n i a n.) is created by blocked or banned user so needs to be deleted as G5. So please delete User:F a v o n i a n. F a v o n i a n. as CSD G5. Thank you. 122.162.66.57 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence I am aware of which shows that the page was created in violation of a block or ban, which is what CSD#G5 requires. Who are you, and why are you so interested in getting this page deleted? Vanamonde (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francisco Javier Arana

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Francisco Javier Arana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francisco Javier Arana

The article Francisco Javier Arana you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Francisco Javier Arana for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, thanks for dealing with the troll @ my user talk page while I was AFK.

Can you reduce the protection to expire tomorrow 3am (UTC)? I guess 24 hours are enough for now. (Yes, technically I can do it myself, but that is against the policy...) — regards, Revi 14:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: done. I'm curious as to why it would be a policy violation, but that's really a by-the-way. Vanamonde (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Stewards are not permitted to use the buttons where local users can do it. And especially on enwiki everything is going to be a WikiDrama (tm) which I want to avoid. — regards, Revi 21:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: Interesting, I didn't know that. There's a tendency to see you folks as all-powerful. Though I imagine this would be an uncontroversial example, I understand your caution perfectly. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Francisco Javier Arana

The article Francisco Javier Arana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Francisco Javier Arana for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Article Barnstar

The Good Article Barnstar
Congrats for getting Francisco Javier Arana to GA status. I'm a big fan of your work. Hope to see more LatAm articles from you! MX (✉ • ✎) 04:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated, MX, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion: Holor

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

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

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

@Vanamonde93: Hello again! For your information, I've been adding references to the section on holors, with authors other than the originators (Moon and Spencer), with sources from 1977, 2000, and 2016. I can make arguments about why the concept of holors is notable, regardless of how many people have referenced it over time, but I have a feeling that most people would want to see some number of references before accepting the term. Do you have a simple rule of thumb for determining when notability has been unequivocally demonstrated?

Zeroparallax (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: By the way, if you or anyone you know is interested in the tensor article, I'm working on a proposed lead re-write in the Talk:Tensor page. Also, I'm still interested to hear if you have a "rule of thumb" as I asked above.  :)

Zeroparallax (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zeroparallax: my apologies, I missed this among a number of other messages in the last couple of days. The rule of thumb is fairly straightforward; substantive mention in two or more solid sources. My threshold for substantive would be a short paragraph. Of course, even if it is notable, it might still be better as part of a different article, such as the one on tensors. I'm afraid I don't have the time to examine your proposal, though. Vanamonde (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the reply. In the holors section I've linked to three solid sources where the concept of holors is foundational. (One is a book and one connects with a series of papers and has coined terminology containing the word holor: holorgraphic geometric modeling (HGM).) Do you have any suggestions on how I should proceed to making the tensor article independent again?
Zeroparallax (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Zeroparallax: Well, the only real rule for when an article should be split off is WP:TOOBIG, which provides guidance when a parent article is too big. That is obviously not the case here, and since the article has been deleted once already, what I would recommend is opening a discussion on the talk page of Parry Moon, and pinging those folks who participated in previous merge/delete discussions. Fair warning; they might all argue that there should not be an independent page, in which case you should abide by that. Also, however, all the sources you've provided are written by the authors whose work you are discussing. As such, they are not really good sources for judging the significance of that work, because they are not independent from that work. To demonstrate significance, you really need independent reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks. I've actually provided three independent sources (beyond the three primary sources). They are linked at the bottom of the section. Does that change how you perceive the situation? (Thanks for the suggestion for using the talk page, etc.)
Zeroparallax (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Zeroparallax: Well I'm not an expert, but not really; you can't use sources which don't use "Holors" to demonstrate the significance of holors. Which makes me think that this might be best kept a section of Parry Moon for now. But maybe the community thinks otherwise, and the talk page is the best way to find out. Vanamonde (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Why do you say these sources don't use "holors"? They do. Like I said, the concept and terminology of holors is foundational to each of these independent sources. One is a whole book relating holors to dynamical systems. Another relates to a series of articles developing an approach called holorgraphic geometric modeling (HGM) in computer graphics. (Also, the third source has in its abstract: "A generalized mathematical theory of holor algebra is used...". It uses the word "holor" extensively.)
Zeroparallax (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zeroparallax: My apologies, I misunderstood that paragraph. You have a stronger case than I thought before, but given the previous consensus for deletion, I'd still suggest a talk page discussion first. Vanamonde (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks, sounds good. I'll do that.

Zeroparallax (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Is

Politics of West Bengal the right place, wherein the detailed political scenario of Bengal, over the years (as researched upon by multiple scholars) can be delved into along with the policies, perspectives, manifestos et cetera of the ruling party and opposition camps, how did they appeal to the electorate, other incidents (mass-rigging et al) can be written about?∯WBGconverse 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I would say that that is a good framing article for any patterns and processes unique to West Bengal (such as the lengthy communist rule, or the Trinamool Congress, or their rivalry, and other such things). This would of necessity include recent political phenomena. If we're talking about a specific mass-rigging incident, though, it may be necessary to cover that in detail elsewhere (at an article about an election, or a specific campaign, or even potentially a separate article if there is enough coverage) and to then provide a summary at Politics of West Bengal, to avoid recentism. I might be able to give you a more specific answer if you tell me what incidents you are looking at. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nabil Gabol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nabil Gabol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Vanamonde, there was a ping to you from this DYK nomination page that went awry because the post wasn't signed. Please consider yourself pinged, if a couple of days after the fact. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Darbhanga

Any chance of reinstating protection at Darbhanga? The amount of crap that keeps getting put back there is incredible. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: given the frequency of disruption I'm not certain if I'm justified in jumping to indefinite semi-protection, and anything short of that isn't really going to help too much because the problematic edits are infrequent. So I've applied long-term pending-changes, and if it's clear there's nothing positive coming through that we could look at upping it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Anything has to be better than nothing. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Restoring request of the page “Syed Adam Banuri”

Dear Vanamonde93, The page”Syed Adam Banuri” was a biography page for the Syed adam Banuri, agreat Islamic Researcher, PHigh rank Sufi and a mystic as well as he is the progenitor of a sayyid tribe living in India and Pakistan. Please restore the page as the subject is important. Thanks--Syed Saqib Imad 18:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs)

@Innocentbadshah: First of all, I did not delete the page: I only tagged it for deletion. Second, the page as you wrote it was a flagrant violation of our policy on neutrality, and specifically did not respect the fact that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. I'm not going to restore the page. Your best way forward is to read the pages WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NPOV carefully, and then to write the page again using reliable sources and neutral language. I would also recommend using the articles for creation process once you are done. Vanamonde (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Respected @Vanamonde93, I am student you know better than me dear brother. I am requesting to you to help for the restoration of the page and do some basic settings of the format as per policies. I am sorry for doing wrong things and these are because i am a student, I will learn and will make sure to follow the policies in future articles. Please help. Thanks--Syed Saqib Imad 19:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs)

Given your response to 78.26 here, I think it's fairly clear you are not able to edit that topic in a dispassionate manner, and I suggest you write about something else. Before making further edits, please read the main links at WP:5P. Vanamonde (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Presidents of Brazil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Presidents of Brazil. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

on getting the toolset:-)∯WBGconverse 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, WBG! It's nice to see that my faith in the community's collective intelligence was not misplaced :) Vanamonde (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

ThinkWave

Hello Vanamonde93,

I understand your interest to make Wikipedia a better place, i found that Thinkwave is well known for Nytimes, BBC, Education Resources Information Center, TheFreeDictionary.com, Crunchbase and National Education Policy Center. Also google results shows About 76,000 results so i decided to create article. if you have any help it will be kind of you. Thanks Stev Knight (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi friend. I just blocked this account as an obvious spammer given their contribution history is ACPERM dodging 101 plus followed by creating a perfectly formatted article on a company that isn’t notable for the reasons you pointed out. Just wanted to give you a heads up since they contacted you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • MER-C caught him using some magic spam detecting thing I'm sure, just asked for my 2O on it. Also, congrats on OS. I was very happy to see you get it: I didn't want to comment on any of the candidates this time around as my candidacy was the most controversial and it didn't really seem the best idea. Otherwise, you would have had a very strong support from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: I'd like some magic spam-detection abilities...Thanks! I understand: I hesitated before commenting on any of the other candidates, too. It's nice to see my faith in the community wasn't misplaced, though. Congratulations to you too (or to put it another way, what have you done to yourself...) Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Baye McNeil (deleted article)

Hello, I see you contributed to debate on deleted article, Baye McNeil. Subject of article has been in news quite a bit - internationally - since article's deletion. I left a note on that at link below, and would be happy if you'd have a look. Thanks!

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Baye_McNeil

Ray Jameson (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Trijnsteltalk 10:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Communist Party of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Communist Party of China. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:PERM

Hello, I've been gaining some experience with using rollback since I was given the permission. Once my trial period runs out do I have to submit another request at WP:PERM or do I talk to you (the person who gave me the flag)?
Thanks,
Kyle Bryant (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kb03: Either works. The quickest might be to post at PERM mentioning that I gave you the flag for a trial period; a passing admin will likely review the request sooner than I could. You could also ping me when you do that, and I'd take a look if I was around. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, see you in December. Kyle Bryant (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom Pitts

Hello. The last recommendation on this article was to draftify it, rather than deleting it. Is this still possible, please? Rory1262 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rory1262: The last comment may have suggested draftifying the page, but the overall consensus was still clearly for deletion. I'm doubly reluctant because this was draftified once already, and you recreated it only for it to land up at AFD once again. I don't want to have that happen a third time, as that's a sub-optimal use of the community's time. What I would suggest is that you step away from this page for a while, and if after the release of this new book you can find some substantive new sourcing, then message me again and I'll give you a copy in the draftspace. Vanamonde (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, that’s reasonable and workable. Thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:H-1B visa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H-1B visa. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Train-wreck of a RfC

Hi Vanamonde93, You might be an involved editor (not sure), but can some admin have a look at the train-wreck of a RfC on Talk:Regional power. Now there are editors who are digressing onto completely random tangents and that will only create a fertile ground for future edit-wars or bones-of-contention. If you prefer to stay away from the mess, I understand. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: You're right about that RfC being a train wreck: it should never have been allowed to get where it did, as it isn't even formulated in way that would lead to a meaningful conclusion. As such I don't see how anything productive can come from it, and really an admin should just close it as being out of process. I am not, strictly speaking, involved here, as I've interacted with the editors but not the topic in question, and closing an RFC is really about judging arguments. However, there are enough editors participating there who have had past disputes with me (for instance, Sdmarathe, who started the RFC, is banned from interacting with me) that I'm not keen on closing it. If I did, the drama that would result (even though it would be unjustified) would make the effort not worthwhile. Why don't you post to ANRFC? Vanamonde (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought about going to ANRFC but am not sure how long should a RfC be open? As of now it has been 16 days. In a different world, one would let it run for longer. I wish I could have washed my hands off the subject and moved away but that would lead to more chaos on a page which is already chaotic. This is an attempt to limit the damage to actual page itself. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: 30 days is the standard period, but if consensus is evident before that, an RFC can be closed at any point. The trouble is a more recent RFC will receive lower priority on ANRFC, so perhaps that's not such a good idea after all. Really what this needs is for someone to close it as a meaningless RFC; theoretically, what it's asking is "does WP:RS apply to this page" to which of course the answer is "yes", and an RFC isn't required to determine that. And then of course Sdmarathe shoehorns his own opinions about the desired outcome into the opening statement, which is inappropriate. And if that were not enough, most of the opposition was to the 3-sources suggestion, which Sdmarathe later withdrew. So really there's no discernible result. RegentsPark: I wonder if I could ask you to step in here? If you're reluctant, maybe I'll do it anyway, and if drama results well, so be it. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little tied up in rl for the next couple of days. @SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare: as possible closers. Or @Bishonen and Doug Weller:. --regentspark (comment) 02:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
RfC is not about using "WP:RS" but using multiple sources passing "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS" because you can find "RS" for dozens of the countries in the world that are obviously not regional power. This report is not about seeking premature closure but dealing with editors who are trying to derail RfC, for which I see no resolution other than moving all replies to a new section called "Discussion", as it is generally done. I will move them or suggest on talk page shortly. @Adamgerber80: RfC don't get closed before 30 days and it would be more appropriate if you report the editors in a proper noticeboard if you really find them disruptive. Orientls (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Orientls, can I ask why have you gone ahead and unilaterally WP:REFACTORed the discussion when no one asked you to? Do you realise, you've not only messed up the structure and sequence of the discussion, but now it's even more confusing as no one can see which comment was in reply to whom. Please do not tamper with the existing comments. If you want to start a new section, please do so below the existing thread without physically moving people's time-stamped comments into other places. Mar4d (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Orientls: Except that Sdmarathe removed the "multiple sources" part of the original post, and all the versions since then, including the current version, on which editors have commented, have not included this suggestion. There's nothing else in the original RFC statement except the question of whether CONTEXTMATTERS, a section of WP:RS, applies to this article. You cannot build consensus for the three-source requirement when that was only part of the RFC for two days. Also, please do not refactor other users statements; it would have been okay to do that before anyone had commented, but breaking up threaded discussion in that manner is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
CONTEXTMATTERS decides if we should accept only those entries that are backed by quality sources and those who oppose it would resort with passing mentions or otherwise basically non-expert sources. Comments splitting has been resolved. For a similar RfC see Talk:Stateless nation#RfC on sources required for inclusion. Orientls (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Orientls: CONTEXTMATTERS is a guideline, and is applicable by default. It does not need an RFC. The RFC you linked established local consensus for using a minimum of three sources; that option no longer exists in this RFC, because Sdmarathe removed it. You would have to start a fresh RFC for that. What are you hoping to achieve here? Vanamonde (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_24&oldid=868905471"