User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 23

RFA
See the edit summary of this edit.Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 11:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. It's strange, because I don't recall it every being an issue when it was open; I should know, I read it through enough times....anyhow. Vanamonde (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Howdy--asking advice !
Hello Vanamonde93! Could you tell me how this articles fares against the FA criterion? Can the article pass through after rigorous improvements? I have recently been out of the content creation loop but I intend to return to content creation next month or so if my exams do not intervene. (chances are they won't) — FR&thinsp;+ 16:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember looking over this a while ago. It's not in bad shape, but the major concern is going to be the level of detail. The GA criteria simply require an article to be broad in coverage, while FAC requires articles to be comprehensive. I don't want to discourage you, but do keep in mind that without detailed source material FAC can be difficult. I have worked on a number of pages that I will never take to FAC for that reason. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Mustafa Tamimi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Mustafa Tamimi. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback
Can you Review my Rollback Request? Thanks! Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁  20:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see Beeblebrox has taken care of it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Dowry of the Angyar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Dowry of the Angyar 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Dowry of the Angyar
The article The Dowry of the Angyar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Dowry of the Angyar 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Luis Arturo González López
Thanks for adding Luis Arturo González López to Selected anniversaries/July 26, but unfortunately, that article is a stub and so we can't use it. — howcheng  {chat} 15:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears to be borderline to me; it certainly has more prose than other non-stubs frequently featured on the main page. That said, feel free to remove it if you have to: I'll try to expand it in the meantime, so I'd appreciate it if you let in remain in the staging area. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Permission to Edit
Hello. I see you placed an indefinite edit lock for List of Steven Universe episodes. I would like permission to be allowed to make one edit. My edit reason being to remove the Guest-star listings that only should be added if the character/actor makes a single appearance. Thank you. SolidarityViewer (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The page is only locked for new accounts and IP addresses. If you remain active, you'll be able to make the change you want in a couple of days. If it's urgent, you can use Template:Edit semi-protected: read the instructions there and post the template to the talk page with the change you want, and if it's reasonable, someone will make it. I'm afraid I'm not going to remove protection from the page for one user. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access
I reckon User talk:VandlismMan should have their TPA/toilet paper access taken away. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * About 24 hours overdue, actually...I've yanked talk page access and deleted the page for good measure. Vanamonde (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Harari (clothing)
You speedy-deleted Harari (clothing) under G11. Would you mind closing the open AfD? I would but I'm involved in the discussion. Thanks Mortee (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Odd that I missed the AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Mortee (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Luis Posada Carriles
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Luis Posada Carriles 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing Dispute in article Steve King resolved
Hello Vanamonde93, the editing dispute regarding categories in the article Steve King has been resolved in the following talk section Talk:Steve_King. I would like to request the editing lock to be lifted so I can edit the article accordingly. 91.17.204.20 (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Protection has expired while I was away. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Extreme Vandalism
Hello Vanamonde93, has been reverting good version edits in the name of sockpuppet. Please take urgent action. I have already reported to WP:AIV and put my opinion in WP:RFPP but their too he is reverting my edits. Without proper judgement he previously reverted good and genuine edits of other users as well. Please check his backlog thoroughly. --103.42.172.222 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have looked into your edits, and it's fairly obvious that you are Kkm010. The only reason I'm not blocking you immediately is because of my involvement in a dispute with Kkm010 before that account was blocked for socking. Honestly, I'm baffled by your behavior. The few edits I reviewed appeared to add correct information, but to do so, you're evading a block (which means your edits will be reverted on sight, no matter their quality) and making preposterous accusations of vandalism. If you genuinely care about this content, then your only option is to avoid Wikipedia altogether for a few months, and then to go back to your original account and request an unblock. If you're not interested in the content and unwilling to take this route, you're more or less admitting you're here for the purposes of disruption; in which case please stay off my talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

business user name
Hi, this user and username appears to be representing a business --> .... Another problem he is doing self promotional editing... but I Am not able to find the appropriate speedy deletion criteria or tag to tag this page... please advice me how to tag this for speedy... than you.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct place to report that is Usernames for administrator attention. In this case, Abecedare has already blocked them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiLove, and a word of thanks
This cookie, and its associated WikiLove, is for the wide array of excellent editing work which you do daily to ameliorate the encyclopedia. Specifically though, it is for this diff. I was created a talk page archive when I stumbled back upon it. I didn't appreciate it at the time, but that diff, along with all the other little nudges in the right direction (particularly at WP:ITNC), was crucial in my development as an editor, as it reminded me of the value of consensus, and experience. I like to think that I have made the transition from novice to pseudo-experienced in terms of editing, and I obviously still have many miles to go, but it is nice to look back, and thank those who lent a word of advice and assistance. So thank you. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why thank you,, I appreciate it. It's always nice to find someone who finds advice helpful; so much of adminning is giving advice to people you know are going to ignore it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of NATO
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of NATO. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Luis Posada Carriles
The article Luis Posada Carriles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Luis Posada Carriles 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ursula Le Guin's Biology in fiction
Hi Vanamonde, I've started a thematic 'in fiction' series to accompany the 'in culture' articles on specific groups. While working on the main article, Biology in fiction, I came across Helen Parker's Biological Themes in Modern Science Fiction, which discusses the biology of The Left Hand of Darkness in some detail. I've added a summary to Biology in fiction, and realise it might be useful at the book's article also. I could add something, or you might like to do it. At the very least, we might add a link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention: I'll take a look. A link would certainly be appropriate, and I've been considering expanding the reception section of that page for a while, so this may be a good occasion to do it, though I've a couple major RL deadlines to deal with first. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe I'll get started gently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sro23
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
 * Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news
 * The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the refs
, Will include them in the Redirect Target. -- D Big X ray  10:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

List of games with directx12 support
Hi! i've noticed this page has been deleted, i was wondering if I could start it up again. my plan is to resource all the information that was originally on the page with the producer/developer's pages. would that be ok? i just dont want to have something deleted if i start it up again. ill use it in the draft namespace aswell Cloaker416 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

additionally the reason for its deletion is poor sources correct?Cloaker416 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would usually be happy to give you a copy of such a page in your userspace, but in this case I'm not able to find the article in question; can you give me the exact title? It isn't "List of games with directx12 support", for sure. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

sorry for responding in such a late fashion, List_of_games_with_DirectX_12_support would be the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloaker416 (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, here you go: User:Cloaker416/List of games with DirectX 12 support. Having looked at the deletion discussion, though, I have to warn you; there was a fair degree of consensus that the topic was not notable, and not just that the page as it stood was not good enough. I don't see this as enough reason to deny your request, but unless the page takes a different shape from what it used to have, it's likely to end up deleted again soon. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks, i realise that and will not be posting anything without discussion, especially because its deleted, thanks again :) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

crat board
Hi. I hope you are well. This might be too late, but is it allowed/okay for non admins to comment on crat board? Also, I fixed Oshwah's signature that I accidentally messed up after you closed the discussion. — usernamekiran (talk)  14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such restriction, to the best of my knowledge; I've seen non-crats comment frequently. See the recent resysop request for Ymblanter, for instance. No worries about the signature fixing. Vanamonde (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Email
Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've replies. Vanamonde (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * replied. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please
take a peek at your inbox:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 06:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * replied. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Greetings User:Vanamonde93 Request for your investigation
As a high status Wikipedia administrator and a creator of good articles, including some on women, you have the authority to verify the  sourced nature of the references provided in  the articles on Angelique Rockas and  Internationalist Theatre and ascertain whether they are `original research`  as is claimed by one of the  columns in both pages:



The Angelique Rockas article has gone through a clean up by several editors incuding User: Melcous, and the and the current version as you can see was carried out by User:Atlantic306 - Then there is the other column in both articles :  Having conducted your investigations into the authenticity of the research and references provided for column one, are there any grounds for the claim of possible undisclosed payments? If the creators have worked from public library networks this might explain the various languages etc

You have the power to delete this column too. Thank you PS: I apologize for not following your request to sign in with the tildes, as I wish to remain incognito, but with no disrespect to you.
 * I'm not sure why you're asking me, but after a brief look, it does seem as though both those banners are justified. There is substantial unsourced content in the article, and other material that was added by a blocked sockpuppet. The article probably could be cleaned up without undue effort, but I'm afraid I don't have the time for it at the moment. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment on WP:AN
You might be correct about attacking motives, especially in that thread. I am willing to completely modify the comment. I will write:-

"**Thank you but that was unnecessary because CU did discovered more violations of WP:SOCK. NadirAli is the only serial sock puppeteer here and not others. What is wrong if we just follow what Arbcom told you after you specifically asked them? It is fine to have a unique opinion but you are risking your own credibility when you are still enforcing that same unique opinion after disagreeing with Arbcom and multiple admins above."

But you would be fine with me removing your comment or you will remove it yourself right after I make my comment? Orientls (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Modifying your comment would be the appropriate thing to do. However, you shouldn't simply change the text, because doing that after someone has responded gives a misleading impression. What you can do is to strike out the inappropriate parts of your comment using [text to be struck out], and add the modified version after that, with a new signature. That makes it clear that you are recognizing that your comment needed to be changed, and if you do that, there's no reason for me to modify my comment. Also, please note that IvanVector has not at any point disagree with ARBCOM. Vanamonde (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meaningful vote
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meaningful vote. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.
Hi Vanamode. Thank you for your advice. I will try my best to made edits that doesn't look like a promotion after this. Maybe, it is my fault that didn't ready policy before making edits. My actual intention is to serve my knowledge about a topic. And I also want to give info about my country and state. I also doesn't have any business link with my edits.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islam Al-Behairy (talk • contribs)
 * You're welcome. Please remember that promotional editing is different from editing with a conflict of interest. You've made it clear that you have no conflict of interest here, but your edits may still be promotional. For instance, even though I am not from Malaysia, it would be promotional editing if I added the sentence "Malaysia is the best tourist destination in the World" to the page about the country. You need to make sure that all the content you add meets our policies on verifiability and neutrality, and you'll be okay. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI tagging
Quick follow up to your comment at Sockpuppet investigations/Hasan Okarvi. There are two main reasons why an account might not be tagged. Master accounts are not tagged if they are only being blocked temporarily. For puppet accounts tagging is the default, but is sometimes not done in order to deny recognition. Usually this is done in long term abuse cases where the editor in question has disruptively interacted with investigation process in some way. I hope that clears things up a bit, but if you're ever in doubt, by all means leave the matter to the SPI clerks. That is our job after all. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for clearing it up! Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A Query on Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Hi there, I see that you had requested page protection for Atal Bihari Vajpayee page, I thank you for your action but I have a query... I See that you are yourself an Administrator here so I Am unable to understand why you did not protect the page yourself? , Are Admins also required to go through RFPP Request? I am still ignorant of some functioning of Wikipedia and your answer will be helpful.. thank you. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I am an administrator, and I could have protected the page myself. The reason I didn't is that I have contributed content on very closely related topics, and I am therefore WP:INVOLVED on this page, so I will not use my tools on that page except to stop the most egregious disruption. Vanamonde (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Headsup to fix ur sign on ANI
here-- D Big X ray  19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you. Five tildes rather than four produces only a timestamp without the user links, and is thus a common mistake... Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
The reactions sub para in Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not created by me I only restored it providing citations. --Donkey335 (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know; but you restored it by reverting an edit made by someone else, in which they specifically said that it was a copyright violation; as such, you're just as responsible. It doesn't matter that you cited the source; the text was copied word for word, and was a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. Please don't do it again. Vanamonde (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine
Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I recall providing some general comments, which were largely addressed. However, my understanding is that much of the disagreement about the article stems from its discussion of gender, sexualization, and attractiveness. Those are deep-rooted issues (speaking generally; I'm not able to judge the article in detail at the moment), and fixing them may require substantial restructuring and/or rewriting large bits. So I don't want to comment on the article right now, because my suggestions are likely to be rendered irrelevant. I would suggest identifying those editors who had criticized the article on those grounds— springs to mind—and asking others for feedback once those issues have been sorted. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanamonde. I've actually been working on the article [on and off] for five months at this point, and have re-written the whole thing several times (using comments/criticisms left at the FACs/PRs). I'm now going door-to-door asking people if any of those issues still remain. Unfortunately, the editor you've linked to above has not responded to either of the messages I left on their talk page over the past 2 months, so that door is pretty much locked shut, it appears. I understand if you don't wanna get involved again, though, because I've admittedly taken over a messy situation. The whole thing irks me. I just wanna feel like I did something, one way or the other. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk's submarine
Could you please explain how the consensus at Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's submarine amounts to a merge? I explicitly asked what content should be merged back, pointing some problems with the WP:DUE policy in doing that, and no one in the discussion replied to my question nor addressed those points. Given that this is your assesment, I think you should provide some instructions on how the merger should be made. Diego (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To put it very simply, your argument was not wrong, but it did not gain consensus. Disagreements such as these are largely matters of judgement; there isn't a clear-cut wrong and right. You argued, quite reasonably, that a) the topic was notable and b) that there was too much material than could be fit into the main page. Most people did not agree with (b), and argued that there wasn't too much content to merge. The claims to notability were also questioned, but not by very many. All of these arguments have a basis in policy. Other arguments, however, are not: "multiple reasons of interest" (keep #4) is a bit of an IAR rationale that I can't give much weight to: similarly, arguing to keep because there it isn't clear that there will be sustained coverage is also a week argument. Furthermore, demonstrating notability is an argument against deletion, but not against a merger; numerous notable topics are better covered in broader articles. Numerically, there 2 (nom + 1) arguing for deletion, 4 for keeping, and 6 for a merger, of which two keep !votes were weak. In toto, no outcome except for "merge" is possible here. Precisely what needs to be merged was not something discussed in the AfD, and as such the AfD provides no guidance. Just use common sense, and open an RFC for contentious material. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll follow WP:MERGETEXT and see how it goes with the target article. Diego (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd still want you to explain how you assessed WP:DUE, since it was addressed in the discussion and it can become a problem now that the merger is done. Were you aware of the discussions at Talk:Elon Musk and Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue that I mentioned? Diego (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not quite how AfD works. The closing admin (me, in this case) has to judge consensus on the basis of the arguments presented: we can't read every background discussion, nor can we make a decision based on what we would have !voted. A large number of people supported the merger; enough to constitute a supermajority, actually, though the precise number only played a small role in my decision. Sometimes consensus doesn't go your way: and if you're absolutely certain I made the wrong call, please take this to DRV, because I'm not about to reverse my closure. Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but one of the arguments in the discussion was that we already had a previous consensus that the content would be undue weight for the target article. Now you're saying that your decision has been made with a local consensus that it wouldn't be undue. So I feel that you've disregarded one of the main arguments in the discussion with respect to the WP:DUE policy. Diego (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe there was local consensus: as I said before, I'm not going to read a bunch of background. But even if there was, consensus can change; and if a bunch of people at the previous discussion felt strongly about this then they should have opined at the AfD. I'm sorry, but I don't think anything I say is really going to persuade you: nor is anything you say likely to persuade me to revert a closure supported by policy based arguments and a 2:1 supermajority. So please either let this go, or take it to DRV. Vanamonde (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK? Biblical criticism
HI! Saw the note on DYK? Biblical criticism about five hours after you posted it, but I don't see what happened after that! Did it get pulled? I swear, this DYK has been more trouble than anything!! I think it's jinxed! (Humor) :-) Anyway just wanted to be sure you knew I had answered.Jenhawk777 02:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's still got nearly two days before it appears on the main page; if it's fixed before then, great, otherwise I'll pull it and substitute another. Vanamonde (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed? The hook is found in the last paragraph of the "Twentieth Century" section under history. Is that what you mean? Jenhawk777 04:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to nag, but I'd like to know--does the hook need fixing somehow? What does it need? The whole quote is in the article now. I understood that to be the issue. If not, I need to know what needs doing in order to do it. Thank you! Jenhawk777 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I'm afraid. Take a look at the DYK nomination page. I'm sorry this is taking so long, but we need to be thorough with the things we put on the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ursula K Le Guin Bibliography
2 August 2018 "Poems have only been included here if they've been covered in WP:RS; also, I find it doubtful in the extreme that an unknown but published woodcut created by Le Guin exists. I'm minded to remove the other entries too, unless they can be referenced, but I'm leaving them in for the moment" 3 August 2018 "adding refs: also found ref for woodcut removed in previous edit, but as a standalone artwork unlike anything else in the list, I'm disinclined to add it."

I have now scanned the relevant issue of Encore into a pdf, and it is currently uploading to my Google Drive; it's got 5+ hours to go; I've got a slow connection. Once that is done, I'll provide you a link to it.

Bear in mind, that to the best of my knowledge it's still in copyright. So, once you've got the link, please edit it out of the post. If we're ever able to determine that the items are out of copyright, uploading to the Internet Archive would be appropriate, but until then, I'm providing it to you so that someone else who cares about this has a copy so that they have a better chance of verifying other mentions of these items, since I don't have ready access to the print resources.

This is one of those cases where there may not be anything to use as a source that Wikipedia will accept as verification, since the statements of individuals is not considered adequate; on the whole, I agree with that policy, but at times like this, it gets frustrating. Of course, I could always make a post to my blog concerning everything I know about this issue and the items contained in it... which might then be able to be used as a source? Dunno. (Added: Ah, hadn't spotted the 3 August note that you had found a reference for the woodcut; good to know!)

There are three libraries with copies of this issue that I have been able to verify. Two in Portland, one in Eugene. I added the OCLC/WorldCat Record Number, and the information regarding those libraries to the pdf as part of an intro sheet.

When I contacted the University of Oregon Special Collections to verify if they had this issue, they were not aware that it had four items by Le Guin, one by Vonda N. McIntyre, and one by Laurence Yep, none of which show up in any source that I have access to. In that they have a specialized collection on women authors in science fiction, with an emphasis on Le Guin, they were glad to find out about it.

From the publication data in the issue, they had an annual circulation of 350,000. It was distributed to those attending performances of the Portland Opera, the Portland Symphony, and the Portland Junior Symphony Orchestra, with an insert in the center specific to the actual performance. So while I'm surprised that this publication isn't listed on Ursula's official website, nor on Vonda's, I'm not surprised at it's not showing up anywhere else.

The only reason I knew about it is that I attended at least one performance where this was distributed; I haven't checked my second copy to see if it is from the same performance or not, and thus if it was a second copy from my father, or my own copy from a different performance. Anyway, I personally possess two near-mint copies of this issue at this time. Um, do you know of any archives or scholar/researcher that might want one of those copies? That's what got me started on this, trying to find homes for them; I don't want them recycled by my heirs, if that can be avoided.

JohnBobMead (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble, but I think it's possible that you didn't read the latest version of the article. There were two issues with the content you added; a) there wasn't a source, and b) poems were generally not included. I have now addressed the first problem, and the stories that you added are now listed in the bibliography with sources. The poem is a more difficult issue, because she has written a very large number of standalone poems, which are not included unless there's significant commentary related to those poems. So, unless you can find commentary from independent sources related to these poems and the woodcut, I don't think it's appropriate to add them, even if we can verify their existence. If you disagree, perhaps you could open a discussion on the talk page of the article, and we can take it from there. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did see that the poem and woodblock had been removed, which is what led to looking at the history page and seeing your reasons for removing those items; your explanation here makes sense. It's the whole notability issue; it's not an attempt to list everything she produced, but rather those items that became notable, with notable having to be defined as published commentary exceeding some threshold, and what that threshold is in a particular case is what leads to the "fun" discussions.


 * I may have made as many as 20 edits in however many years I've been registered here; it's not a major focus for me, to put it mildly. So there's stuff I'm not clear on, because I haven't taken the time to investigate and I haven't accumulated the experience necessary to make the correct judgements.


 * Anyway, in case you'd like to see the issue of Encore, the link is Encore: Magazine of the Arts April-May 1977; as well as the four items by Ursula, there's an essay concerning her written by Vonda N. McIntyre, which may or may not be the same as one she published a bit later with a similer name which does show up in her various bibliographies, and a story by Laurence Yep. My cursory search of the Internet has failed to find mention of these, so notability is definitely a concern in regard to adding them to this wiki. I had to edit the pdf; it was initially at 600dpi, which made it huge, which is why it was taking forever to upload, and as long as I was adjusting the dpi I rescanned a couple of pages that had come out poorly. The version I uploaded is 96dpi, but still very clear.


 * Please edit out anything I've posted here that doesn't need to remain on your talk page for future reference. I recognize that I'm overly verbose; sad to say, the Internet is basically all the contact I have with others at this time.


 * JohnBobMead (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I would enjoy reading that issue at some point, so thank you for giving me a link. There's certainly plenty of other important things in life besides Wikipedia, so not understanding things when you start out is not a problem It's when misunderstandings persist in the face of good friendly advice that it can become a problem.... Anyhow, thanks for being civil and understanding about it, and best wishes. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick move request
Hey Vanamonde, I saw you were around and was wondering if you could move User:EnterpriseyBot/reply-link.js to User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js over a redirect. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done: let me know if you want the talk page moved too. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the talk page is fine. Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a note
To avoid clogging that AE thread, I thought this reply to part of your observations more appropriate here. "Yes, I said English is my native language, and implied Debresser didn't construe it correctly. You are quite correct that many foreign speakers know a language better than native speakers. The point was made by George Steiner, After Babel, OUP 1975 p.470 who, after remarking:'the technical proficiency (of Japanese scholars) in English humbles one' added that, sadly, so much that is being said is correct, so little is right, which is precisely the case here on that sentence stating (in a way that I think would embarrass a lot of people in whose name it is written) 'Jews form part of a 'greater distinctive ethnic group' (than Arabs).'"

In replying: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Jews&diff=856102309&oldid=856101746 'You misunderstood the intention of the phrase. The intention is, obviously, that "Jews" is the greater distinctive ethnicity of "Arab Jews" (and of "American Jews", etc.')] Debresser took the sentence one way, assuming it is a misunderstanding to take it any other way. Language is a wonderful, yet insidiously clever, thing: it says or implies, as often as not, far more than what any one speaker might think it is saying. Native fluency in a language, even by if acquired as a second language, means having the ability to see all the shades and nuances of statements (which indeed often escape native speakers) .As a philologist, I took it as ineludibly suggesting also a racist meaning. My own work on racism and nationalism has a google scholar hit of close to 1,000. In peer-review, that suggests I know the topic well, which doesn’t exclude, of course, my human liability to err, but not, I think, here. That sense is as present, if not more liable to be read as present as the other, to any native speaker who troubles herself to woo her mother tongue's mischievous enchantments with a passion. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're reading in this case is likely correct (I haven't the time to dig into it); all I mean is that the same point can be made without reference to Debresser's origins: "you have misunderstood this" does the job, does it not? Also, consider this; if you were unable to persuade Debresser based on previous argumentation, do you think it likely that he would be persuaded because you pointed out that he was not an English speaker? I think not. The best course in such a situation is likely to be to invite outside opinion. In any case, to be absolutely clear, I'm not questioning your understanding of English, merely the necessity of pointing it out. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you,, I appreciate it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping it cool

 * Thanks. I'm glad you meant that comment as a joke, and I hope there's no hard feelings. Just keep in mind that a site-ban discussion (or indeed, most AN discussions) tends to be quite tense, and a joke could easily be misconstrued. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * VNM, You are mistaken above in what I meant above. I never said that my sarcasm was meant as a joke or should be discredited as a joke. Rest of your above reply is based on this flawed misunderstanding of my comment. I hope you are well aware that sarcasm is not the same as a joke. Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt". Sarcasm may employ ambivalence, although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic.. Cheers.. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the definition of sarcasm, thank you. I believed you to have been joking after your first message here because no reasonable person would make a "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt" and then expect it to be taken "in light spirit". You're demonstrating perfectly the problem with being sarcastic in such a discussion. You made a comment that was entirely out of left field: so I simply told you not to be silly. If you were making a serious analogy between suggesting that other individuals were also guilty in the disputes Nadir Ali was involved in, and conspiracy theories related to the Illuminati, then your comment is more troubling, because it suggests you've lost perspective in that discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, your belief is wrong. My sarcasm was made to taunt the comment that in my opinion was derailing the discussion on a very serious topic of violations from a particular individual. his violations were presented clearly. Asking to read the bigger picture (That you asked BMK there), or trying to involve others, indulging in Whataboutery, False equivalence and muddying the waters are all diversionary tactic employed to allow an escape. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my comment now. And there should be no misunderstanding on the genuine intention behind my sarcasm. Calling it a joke amounts to belittle it and I appreciate that you dont. Over and out. Thank you. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem. If you wish to disagree with someone's comments because you feel they represent "[Whataboutery]], False equivalence and muddying the waters"|undefined, then you should say that, instead of making nonsensical allusions to the Illuminati. Given the seriousness of what you were attempting to say, both your comment there and your subsequent message here are strange, to say the least. Writing what you mean in a straightforward manner will avoid future misunderstandings. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup
Are you happy with the draft newsletter in my sandbox2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! If I'd make a tweak at all, I'd just substitute "editor" for "man (or woman)": I understand that you're making a reference there, but it may be misconstrued. Apologies for not evaluating more submissions (though I did check several that had already been approved); RL intervened, and it seemed as though whenever I'm on-wiki I've been caught up in silly drama here and there. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:


 * Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
 * Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
 * Other contestants who qualified for the final round were 🇲🇭 Nova Crystallis, Iazyges,  SounderBruce,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack and 🇺🇸 Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Luis Posada Carriles
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary
Wishing Vanamonde93 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpg jhp  jm  02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)