User talk:Vagabond nanoda

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shenandoah Harmony (December 17)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shenandoah Harmony and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shenandoah Harmony, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shenandoah_Harmony Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaptainEek&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shenandoah_Harmony reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Vagabond nanoda/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Vagabond nanoda/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Vagabond_nanoda/sandbox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Vagabond_nanoda/sandbox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Vagabond nanoda

Thank you for creating Shenandoah Harmony.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review; I agree with your comments. I regularly check to see if anything has been published recently. Shenandoah Harmony is part of a grass-roots tradition that's under the radar screen. (1) The significance (if not notability) is that there are many parts of Americana that are alive today because of that book. Two songs written by Justin Morgan grieving over his wife, once again being sung and felt, not by choirs, but in living rooms and on people's porches. The world of minor key tunes, before the advent of modern major key fascism, has been brought back to life. I guess my attitude is one of twiddling my thumbs, waiting for a scholar to notice that. It has republished the work of Ananias Davisson which is notable, so perhaps the article should be merged with that page until some scholar notices. (2) Another source of notability (if only a scholar would notice), is that living traditions renew themselves (a) by new creations and (b) by rediscovering their roots (the young generation skips over the heads of the parents and learns from the grandparents). In this case, there are about 80 new compositions. And the tradition of Sacred Harp (1844) singing, widespread with many scholarly works, has been skipped over by Shenandoah Harmony, which is reviving music from 1816. This is a cogent argument, but I need to wait for a scholar to say it. In the meantime, people in Germany and England are singing this music. Maybe I've painted myself into a corner. Did I prepend the code correctly? Vagabond nanoda (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rur Dam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ninth Army ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rur_Dam check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rur_Dam?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lekanesphaera has been accepted
 Lekanesphaera, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Lekanesphaera help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Sulfurboy (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Monastery of Saint-Onuphre
Hello, Vagabond nanoda,

Thank you for creating Monastery of Saint-Onuphre.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Hi this article needs references such as books, journals or major newspapers to support it. Without references it may be deleted. If you’re not sure how to format references please put weblinks or other notes into the article talk page and another editor will format them.  Thanks"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bournillon cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elysian Fields ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bournillon_cave check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bournillon_cave?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moulin-sous-Touvent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Front ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Moulin-sous-Touvent check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Moulin-sous-Touvent?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
Thanks for reminding me: I added a Source section. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok great. You’ll see that I’ve added a translation template to the talk page. You should use this any time you translate from another wiki, adding the language code and original article name as appropriate. Now that the template is on, you don’t need the sources section in the article itself, so I’ve taken it out. Happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charmont-sous-Barbuise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archives nationales ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charmont-sous-Barbuise check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charmont-sous-Barbuise?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Artistic scandal
Hello, Vagabond nanoda, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Vexations, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Artistic scandal, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Artistic scandal.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Vexations (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Artistic scandal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artistic scandal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Artistic scandal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vexations (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bournillon cave
Hello just a word to point out that Bournillon Cave is not a creation but a translation of Grotte de Bournillon, article created on June 7, 2017 on wikipédia.fr. On wikipédia.fr it is specified that the article is a translation, apparently not on Wikipedia.en. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Grotte de Bournillon; see its history for attribution. You should also add the template to the talk page. Good luck with that.--Biboc (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 August 2020 08:43:12 (UTC)


 * HI Vagabond nanoda, DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY 's lengthy epistles that he uses as a scare tactic. Your edits at The Exodus article were great, and you correctly cited the Spanish, French, German, Russian Wikipedias as reliable precedents. You also gave a fine example of WP:BEBOLD. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. IZAK (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You should know that I am not the only Wikipedian who discussed that with you. Much of the above was written by . If WP:RULES weren't on my side, I could have never prevailed in Wikipedia. I'm much too minoritarian for that: internationalist, Romanian, immigrant to the Netherlands, Einsteinian-Spinozist as religion, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I've been summoned: everyone's wrong, get over it. Vagabond nanoda's post at Talk:Exodus fails WP:No original research, is potentially based on outdated source (and is definitely citing Wikipedia articles, which is not how this site works), and seems to confuse different types of creation myths (which, granted, our articles don't do an adequate job of explaining).   is wrong to come so readily armed for the prospect that VN might be pushing some sort of fundamentalist POV (even if he admits the possibility that that might not be the case), since VN did not complain about the very word "myth" (just what kind of myth we should call it).   is wrong for assuming that any form of Wikipedias can be cited as precedent, and rather seems to be holding a grudge against Tgeorgescu that would be tricky to work with WP:AGF.  Now I'm off to finish cooking dinner. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fugu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yamaguchi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Gripes about origin stories
Please avoid inserting aspersions and personal grievances into articles as you did at this edit. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hirayama Seisai moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Hirayama Seisai, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hirayama Seisai
Hello, Vagabond nanoda. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hirayama Seisai, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hirayama Seisai


Hello, Vagabond nanoda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hirayama Seisai".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)