User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 37

Bahman Tavoosi
Hello, I don't understand why the page of Bahman Tavoosi is kept getting deleted, previously someone else created the page and it was deleted, again I have created the page and once again it is deleted. Hopefully, you understand how much time anyone has to spend to write a page, we are all busy and trying to help each other, kindly read the comments before you decide to delete the hard work. Thank you! Inception 111 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)inception 111
 * The article was deleted because Tavoosi was not clearly notable, which is necessary for an article to be kept on Wikipedia. The deletion was the result of this discussion, and there has been a previous discussion about it as well. I'm sorry you feel your work was wasted, but perhaps you can use the experience you gained to work on existing articles or more clearly notable topics. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde93 for your explanation, however, I have provided links and sources indicating the artist as a notable person ( his film was on few festivals around the world and clearly you can see it from the links that provided on his page. The artist had also numerous interviews with the different press which again were included. These sources are not from the artist but by other sources (festivals, press, interviews). How else a person become notable?! Please check these links, don't know who is deciding to delete the page without reading all the notes and comments that I have provided in the last couple of months. Hopefully, Wikipedia will consider the number of hard work editors do their page trying to create databse for the all the artist and et out there in the world. Thanks. Inception 111 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)inception 111
 * You don't need to persuade me; you needed to persuade the people who participated in the deletion discussion, because the consensus formed there is what led to the page being deleted. Please also note that the default standard for notability is WP:GNG; the arguments you make may suggest notability, but they certainly do not automatically make a person notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply, I have already checked the Wikipedia notablity link, as per WikiPedia ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

Facts:

1- There are over hundreds of coverage on media for the artist 2_ There are links on all different kinds of media and newspapers

I wonder if anyone read my original comments before they decide to delete the page Inception 111 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)inception 111
 * Consensus in that discussion was clear, and I am not going to reverse the closure. If you would like to dispute the closure, you need to go to WP:DRV, but I would recommend against it; your energy is better spent elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The page for the artist Bahman Tavoosi is deleted yet again, It's so frustrating after a couple of months of editing and creating the link, Wikipedia just decided to delete the page. I wonder if anyone is reading the comments and check the article before they decided to trash many hours that I spent on this page. Please reverse the deleted page and check all the previous notes. Thank you!!!Inception 111 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)inception 111
 * Please read my comments above. I will not be restoring the page. If you think I've made the wrong decision, you can take this to WP:DRV, but I strongly suggest you spend your time elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday
Hello,

I was suggested by a user to reach out to you to get some help on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page. There is an image of Swaminarayan and paramhanso in the Early monasticism section. This image is already used in the article. It is on the cover of the BAPS vachnamrut below and is very visible which I stated in the talk page. If you read the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Image_Diversification there have been lengthy discussions but on one is addressing the use of the same picture twice. I tried to replace the picture with something more reasonable which is this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swaminarayan_gadi.png that shows Swaminarayan, his paramhaṃsas and acharayas but I was personally attacked and giving talk page notices. Am I doing something wrong here? The talk page consensus is not appropriate going forward with certain users as per their editing histories it shows sect bias in almost all their edits. A user made up allegations of racism when instead it was found out that majority of the BAPS sources come from BAPS members and that point never got addressed. (Is that even allowed?) If you have the time, would you please take a look at this.Kevpopz (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look, and that talk page is a hopeless mess. I would suggest you ask for input at the conflict of interest noticeboard, because this requires an uninvolved editor to spend a while examining the sources and the images, and I simply do not have the time at the moment. Also, edit-warring is always a bad idea, but especially so when it's just over the duplication of an image; there are better things to spend your energy on. Sorry I can't be of more help. I see was involved on that page for a while, but seems to have stepped away, which just goes to show it's a bit of a timesink... Vanamonde (Talk) 14:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm still involved, but it's like wading through a pool with sticky glue. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know. It doesn't look very tractable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Vanamonde for your follow up. I made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha in the introduction with the following: BAPS followers do not follow the acharayas and temples of the original gadis, (Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses) but have created their own temples to reflect their interpretation of Swaminarayan vishishtadvaita. Is this appropriate? If I go to the talk page, there appears to be a consensus from certain users and it's obvious who is who. I don't want to come to you to validate the topic above or take a side. I want to know per Wikipedia policy, context and sourcing, is this an appropriate edit? Kevpopz (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't really answer that without access to the source. Could you provide a quote? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde Here is access to another source which has the same thing. This author uses same source that I used. To avoid any issues, I'll cite both and wait for your feedback Kevpopz (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat uncertain about the reliability of encyclopedia.com, although the content seems to be supported there. The Jones source looks fine; I asked for a quote because you asked me to verify your edit, and I need a quote for that. Please note, though, that I can only confirm that the content in question meets WP:V. Deciding whether or not it belongs in the article is an editorial decision that you need to reach consensus on, and I also do not have the time to decide if it meets WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN backlog drive!
-- Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
I'm aware that there are some sanctions on the article on People's Mujahedin of Iran. My question is that I proposed a change to the lead at Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_32. It was opposed once. When I responded there was no additional response by anyone (the initial objector got banned from the article so they couldn't respond anyway) and eventually the discussion got archived due to inactivity. Would it be appropriate for me to WP:BOLDLY re-instate that change and wait to see if someone objects? VR talk 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you previously made the change in the article itself? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have and it was reverted after which I tried to discuss it. The discussion didn't continue, probably because shortly afterwards the only user to object was topic banned.VR talk 14:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Modern Art Research Institute of Ukrainian Academy of Arts
Greetings. The listed result was to redirect it to...itself? It's pretty clear what the actual intent was, based on what little discussion was there, but I thought I'd drop a note rather than step on your toes by changing it myself. Thanks. --Finngall talk 14:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A copy-paste fail, thanks for catching it. Should be fixed now. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI closure
Thank you for your closure of Chris's IBAN, but do you just want to go ahead a close the entire discussion? Jerm (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A moment...I was logging the restriction, and will close the main discussion now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

WHY
why did you delete my edit it was for when i get older and die so i have some memory

Ireallydontcareugh (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC) 
 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you read the message I left you here, you'll find an explanation as to why some of your edits were removed. You may also find this page useful if you don't want future contributions to be removed as well. Happy editing, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions closed and archived
Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions has been closed and archived. The archived amendment request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93, I note that the partial close guidance is now included. At this point, may we engage in a socially distant handshake and move forward in mutual regard, or do I still have work to do, in your view? It is important to me that I do not have unresolved issues with people I respect. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's important to me too, and the respect is mutual. I think I have the clarity I need, the participants to that conflict have received a salutary reminder that their conduct was sub-par, and the various discussions have been closed; so yes, I believe we can move on from here. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you, this pleases me greatly. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Otto Reich
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Otto Reich 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ajpolino • LuK3
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jackmcbarn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news
 * The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (T261630).

Arbitration
 * The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
 * Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous
 * The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
 * Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Scatterlings of Africa
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Otto Reich
The article Otto Reich you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Otto Reich for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Saffron Terror
Undid your revision, the inputs from political parties are completely valid. How can you arbitrarily decide it is not? The statements made in the sources clearly show that this so called saffron Terror phenomenon is merely a political vendetta on the part of the lib-left. A.A Ghatge (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS and WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adam Beattie
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adam Beattie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rajaji
Hello vanamonde93!... Why the wiki page for rajaji is deleted Whitefrans (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. You will have to be more specific; Rajaji has not been deleted, it is only a redirect to C. Rajagopalachari, so I don't think that's what you're referring to. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello vanamonde... Thanks for your kind reply.. Here there was a page in the name of rajaji(Tamil actor). You can google "rajaji tamil actor"for more info. This page was deleted last month and its mentioned the name vanamonde.Now its redirecting to c. Rajagopalachary. Can you please call me or share your number to discuss in detail.Thanks again for your reply. Whitefrans (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not post your phone number to Wikipedia, as it's not a good idea to publicize it. We typically have all the necessary discussion on talk pages; calling isn't necessary. Rajaji (actor) was deleted following this deletion discussion, where there was a clear consensus that he did not meet our general notability guideline or our supplementary guideline for actors. Please read those pages for further information. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde.. This page Rajaji(Actor) is avilable since from 2013 and also its metting your supplementary guideline for actors. He already completed 5 movies and still doing some movies. But what made you to delete this page. Even i can the pages for actor and actress who have done just one or couple of movies. Here am requesting you to restore the page. Thank you. Whitefrans (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an argument you needed to make in the deletion discussion, not to me. I cannot unilaterally overturn the consensus reached in that discussion. If you think he is genuinely notable, I suggest you write a draft page with enough reliable sources to show that he meets our guidelines, and submit it through the articles for creation process. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Its not an argument... Doesn't make any sense when you feel its an arguments. If does not meet the guidelines then why the page has been created.All the reliable source what you expecting is alrdy there in Google search. Anyways i dont want to waste my time here.. Let me go with the process.But i request you not delete others pages without knowing anything about the person or page details. Whitefrans (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is absolutely no need for any editor to have any knowledge of the subject they are editing. The only knowledge required is the ability to read the sources, as every single thing in a Wikipedia article MUST be paraphrased from reliable sources. The owner of this talk page has considerably more experience on Wikipedia than you. Please take his advice. It's rock solid. 174.254.193.245 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I dont think you are doing a good job or deserve for Wikipedia. Whitefrans (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Letz end this discussion, where there is no point. Whitefrans (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 174.254.193.245, thank you. Whitefrans, you can think what you like about me, but please read the policies and guidelines I linked before editing further, as your disagreement here seems to be with Wikipedia's principles, and this will cause you difficulty in the future if you remain unfamiliar with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have read the policies and the deletion logs where few arguments whr happened. No matter just reading the policies and need to follow clearly for every entry in Wikipedia.After see the deletion logs i can clearly makeout just bcus of ego issues with other third party editors that entry has been removed. Just reading policies and principle is not a big thing, need to be loyal to the work. Whitefrans (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Starship Troopers
I see you undid my revision where I added a "by whom" template on the claim that some say the novel is dystopian. It seems to me that all the cited sources say that it is in fact utopian. I'm therefore taking the license to revert the article to my revision for now. LunaticLarry (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please contributed to Talk:Starship Troopers. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg John M Wolfson
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Yunshui

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Anarchyte
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Yunshui

Guideline and policy news
 * Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news
 * Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
 * Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
 * Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration
 * The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
 * The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous
 * A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Coverage in "Political Positions" sections
I am currently working on the Erin O'Toole article (currently pushing for GA, planning to get it FA at some point after the next federal election) and would like to know how much coverage an article should give of a politician's positions. How much coverage should such a position get before being included? I would not be surprised if I overdid it, given that 50.7% of the word count of the article is in that section.  Username 6892 (Peer Review) 03:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No hard-and-fast rule exists, but more than fifty percent is likely too much. If there is that much coverage of someone's political positions, a spinoff article may be justifiable; but a good method of trimming this section, at least for prominent politicians, is to rely on articlest that are profiles, rather than pieces on specific issues that include sound bytes from a number of politicians. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is, the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by. In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were, , and. The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
 * wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Otto Reich
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Community sanctions alerts don't set the tag
Hi. I was trying to notify an editor under WP:GS/IRANPOL and happened to see an example of you leaving a prior notice: Here is your addition of the notice. Sadly, this notification doesn't set the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert'.

Compare this outcome to a successful notice to the same person under Arbcom (not Community) sanctions in the same history: Here. This means that some of the facilities we tend to rely on for the Arbcom sanctions don't quite work. For example, checking that the person was not notified of community sanctions within the past year. Couldn't this be an edit filter problem? No idea if you were the right person to tell about this, but I had to tell someone! Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that; thanks for letting me know. To be quite honest, the technical aspects of logging and notification are still opaque to me; I use the templates often because they're necessary to both my admin work and content work...I cannot remember if this is the case, but it's possible a copy-paste error on my part led to the absence of the logging; it's also possible the template syntax itself is broken. If that were not enough, I believe someone has been trying to delete all the subject-specific clones of the ds-alert template as being unnecessary (again, I'm not familiar enough with the technicalities to get into it), including here; and if the generic template doesn't have this issue, it may already have been fixed for any future case, and past cases should be logged here. may be able to help answer whether it's the template or the edit that was a problem, as they've worked on that filter before. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem here is the text (or lack of it), in the template, right before the signature - basically the "-- derived from template:ds/alert". To be honest, my edit to the filter was a blind technical tweak, and though I'm good with filters, the subject area (in many ways) is not one of my strong suits. We could ping AGK, who has worked on the filter extensively and is surely a subject specialist. Alternatively I could keep digging. I suppose it would help to know what template you were using... -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, see this on my talk: User_talk:ProcrastinatingReader. This is pretty much why I've been trying to get the old templates deleted. They don't work properly (and haven't before I touched them, either) and I don't really feel like it's worth maintaining/fixing a dozen separate templates verses just sending them for deletion. Not having them exist at all, forcing usage of the standardised ones, eliminates the confusion, removes the maintenance barrier, and prevents text constantly going out of sync in my eyes. As it relates to this question, just using Gs/alert should work (no changes are required to the filter for this). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Deleting the old templates does sound like the correct move. I haven't checked out the 'wrapper' question mentioned in your TfD, though. Hopefully you will get some participation in the TfD. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader; that does make sense to me (and thanks to you, too, Zzuuzz, for checking). Unless I'm mistaken, this problem only arose because we switched from logged notifications to an edit-filter, but that's a cleaner system anyhow, so I've no problem with that. It may be necessary, once the templates have all been deleted, to update the documentation (including at the parent template page, so no one makes more clones of it). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Narender Modi
Hello, I recently updated Modi wiki page by removing controversial and wrong statement of Alleged Participation in Gujarat riots he has got clean chit a long way back, still its is written Alleged ??? Anyway its clear wiki has a habit of Hinduphobia, also reaching Consensus on Talk pages in nearly impossible Since U will never change the section which doesnt suit your narrative or Agenda as i see articles of Delhi riots or Historical Figures and many other in which tone they are written. Aristocratic 536 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear to me what your question is, but regardless; please read WP:DUE. Wikipedia writes what reliable sources say, and reliable sources support the narratives in those articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok i will kept that in Mind The point was simple he got clean chit in the case During Congress rule and still saying alleged role in Riots, What more can i say,There are thousands of sources for One information and we should go for more accepted versions,instead of what suit your own Narrative,anyway i gave citation from Times of India and Ndtv who themselve are left allinged,Anyway i wont do edits in these topics in future as there is no point in wasting time. Aristocratic 536 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway i will kept that in Mind,what u said. Cheers Aristocratic 536 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Image Of Narender Modi
Hello i recently add photo of Narendra Modi from a event show in 2013 Even u know such changes dont make much diff either i Just update the photo of few years back and its ok to have such changes kindly tell the users Prolifiix to not revert my photo edits again. Aristocratic 536 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do that; any changes to the image require consensus on the talk page, and as the person seeking to make the change, you need to obtain consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok.Aristocratic 536 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Loren Culp
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Loren Culp. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bunbury Wildlife Park
Hello - can you please tell me why you didn't even ask me about the Bunbury Wildlife Park redirect before you closed the discussion? The park is not mentioned there because I hadn't added it yet. What you did is not right. Can you please restore the content so I can add it? Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are planning to redirect it, as you imply, you don't need the original page, surely? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to put some of the content from the original page on there. Can I please have it restored somewhere? Deus et lex (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've created a redirect and restored the history; please include the term at the target soon, else it's quite possible it will end up at RfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your close on the failed deletion attempt for A Wet Dream on Elm Street! What do you think of the article improvements? Right cite (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's not my area of interest, and I don't have the time to examine it in detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , okay no problem, thanks for your close of the discussion! Right cite (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion
Please delete the revision of 117.230.146.220 and edit summaries of in Christianity in Kerala. Thank you, SUN EYE 1  07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , done. It looks as though an SPI may be necessary; perhaps one has been opened already? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I haven't opened an SPI yet as the master is blocked indefinitely and will open one if this continues. SUN EYE 1  17:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request: The Troubles
Hi Vanamonde! Since you were the one who opened a related thread on AN re this user and DYK, I thought you might be interested in weighing in now that he is appealing the AE sanctions. Cheers! Bloom6132 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did see that had been opened; I am reserving comment for the moment, but will keep an eye on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn
Hello as the closing admin for this rfc. The ethnicity of the subject was considered disputed however new editors are trying to ignore the consensus and pushing for a one sided POV. Can you please step in here? Magherbin (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to say Magherbin was against the neutral users who were the first ones to propose an ethnicity section. None of Magherbin sources were removed. However, he couldn't tolerate the sources that discredited his sources so he resulted in edit warring and even tried to falsely accuse individuals as sock puppets just because they were against his point of view. He has failed to counter any argument and failed to engage in good faith.  All he resorts to is by removing sourced content without discussing it on the talk page.  He's being very disruptive and I would be honoured if you could check on his behaviour as he is not following the Wiki guideline. Ayaltimo (talk)  03:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot verify the page in question; can you provide a precise quote of the source being used to support "Somali ethnicity"? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ragnimo could explain it better. He'll provide you with the sources. Ayaltimo (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu
Religious fanatics are taking ownership at Kalaripayattu and not allowing any edits deviating from their agenda. The worst part is it is pending-changes protected and they all are confirmed accounts who can make changes without scrutiny. None of them give proper explanation for reverting, and sometimes blatantly reverts multiple edits (edited with proper edit summary) without explanation. Two of them have COI as evident from their usernames (Kalari). Their main business is promoting their POV and highlighting Hinduism part, though Kalaripayattu do have rituals based on Hinduism, the art itself is not a "Hindu art", it just happened to have originated when only Hindu "religion" was prevalent in Kerala. It is a martial art practised by all religious communities, many of the masters are Muslims, the Christians even have a folk dance derived from Kalaripayattu. Some Hindu extremists are "making statements" by projecting Hinduism on an otherwise communally harmonious martial art. BTW, I am also a Hindu, but this is too much.

The first time my edit got reverted (see history here onward), I never thought it was religious agenda, but now it's becoming clearer, as User:Kalariwarrior changed "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mythology" (source says former), and User:Kalari Poothara's recent Hinduism promotion in lead, and as Outlander07 is now trying to re-insert Hinduism claims (not in the source) in lead which I had removed; he had also removed a sourced mention about a Hindu lower-caste community – Thiyya. There are multiple legends on the creator - Parashurama, Shiva, Agasthya; they want Parashurama, not only that, they don't want to attribute it as "legend" (I agree with ). I suspect Outlander07 and Kalariwarrior to be the same person, all three are incompetent in editing. The article requires serious cleanup for sourcing and NPOV. Should I report this activity to WP:ANI, or somewhere else, or what? Please help. 2409:4073:498:FC1B:D8B9:3996:7732:334 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusive Language
Hlello Mate Ravi Mavi abused me recently for Talk page of Tomaras because he cant counter me with Facts Kindly block Him he is Really Caste boomer and has been Targeting me many times. Cheers. Samboy 01681 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)