User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 41

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)



Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mkdw

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
 * Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news
 * DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under.

Arbitration
 * A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
 * Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous
 * Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
 * The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Khafi Khan § Quotations. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fireal
Greetings Vanamonde93. Regarding the Fireal article which you recently deleted per AFD, will you please userfy it for me at User:John Cline/Fireal. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Because it is my desire and goal to collaborate and improve this article until it is ready to return to the article main space, I have the following, perhaps unorthodox, additional request: Will you also, please, userfy Talk:FIREAL to User talk:John Cline/Fireal so as to keep the entire article's history, both article and talk, intact for that expectant future move. Than you.--John Cline (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary; if and when the page is moved back to mainspace, the talk page can simply be restored where it is. I don't imagine you need the talk page for drafting? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I understand. The reason I asked is because I did invite and will invite others to collaborate on improving this draft and the talk page would be consistent with that effort. Because many of these invited users are new, I anticipate that talking will be a useful and necessary aspect of further draft development. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. An unorthodox request, but okay. Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Breast tax
You achieved conclusion with discussion to remove Breast Tax ? .2402:3A80:500:C03B:0:70:500C:5301 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the discussions were conclusive in either direction. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Userfication of The Dark Side (Fireal album)
Can I please request that the page The Dark Side (Fireal album), deleted on October 2nd, be userfied and moved over so I can help improve it? Thanks! Dragonsnowballcat (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I only deleted a redirect, as the result of a deletion discussion for the band. The article for the band has been userfied; see above conversation with ; maybe you can collaborate? The history of that title also doesn't contain any content beyond the label, date, and track listing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD Close
Just a courtesy response to your close of Articles for deletion/Lilandra Neramani. I disagree with your premature close of the subject topic. I am not opposed to a merge into a list article if that is ultimately what the community has decided, but there simply is no strong consensus for an action to merge at this point in time. Only one editor came up with a definite call to merge, but did not cite any proper guideline or policy or even essay other then a vapid declaration of "No MCU no glory", which in my opinion is weightless and should be discarded. The appropriate action, given the lack of strong consensus, is to relist the topic. What I believe you have done here is essentially a super vote which is at odds with anything resembling a rough consensus in this discussion, where two editors argued strongly for "delete" but there were more numerical "keep" votes. You also did not perform any actual merge of the content and simply did a blanket redirect. Haleth (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The consensus was not to merge. I think you did not assess the WP:CONSENSUS - and it seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE. I want to ask you to reconsider by relisting the topic. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was a supervote. A standalone article for a fictional character really does require reliably sourced information that is more than plot detail, and the challenges to the provided sources were not sufficently rebutted. I'd be willing to relist, but absent more evidence that the linked sources are not just summarizing plot detail, I don't see how a different outcome is possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As we both have said, the project is consensus driven, and the consensus disagrees with merge. I myself provided RS. The problems are surmountable. Lightburst (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already provided a sufficient argument that the sources I cited are not pure summaries of plot detail, literary analyses or criticisms provided by published sources rarely are just plot summaries, and other editors who have subsequently joined the discussion have not raised any concerns that they are pure plot regurgitations, regardless of whether you find merit in their opinions. We can agree to disagree with your notion that "the provided sources were not sufficently rebutted", but let's say even if I agree, the AfD has only run for a week without any relists, and there is still no solid consensus of any kind to keep, merge or delete. Even a "delete" outcome is stronger then what is an essentially non-existent merge argument, especially when I pointed out that the editor misinterpreted the nominator's argument for deletion. Since it is clear that you have already voiced your own opinion about the viability of the sources, as opposed to the collective opinion of any rough consensus, I believe that your action is in fact a supervote, and in that case you should have participated in the AfD instead of closing it. If you decide not to relist the discussion, I will take it to deletion review. Haleth (talk)
 * Haleth the AfD was relisted. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Haleth, it is the closer's job to evaluate the commentary about the sources provided. A closer who is not looking at those sources to see if the comments about them are factual is not doing their job. What would be a supervote is if I had performed my own search for sources, or otherwise evaluated arguments not presented at the AfD (ie my own reasoning to keep or not). Like it or not, your sources were challenged in a policy-based manner. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

30
Our article on Magtymguly Pyragy, a legendary Turkmen poet, depends entirely on sources which were produced by scholars affiliated with Govt. of Turkmenistan. A totalitarian regime (heard of the Ruhnama?), Turkmenistan exercises absolute censorship on all content and has consistently ranked among the bottom three nation-states in anything that has to do with human rights.

Western scholarship on Pyragy is scarce (read, non-existent). That being said, a scholar has discussed how these works aimed to satisfy a spectrum of political goals: a particular source (used in our article) is noted to have deduced the birthdate of Pyragy on sketchy logic, so that 2014 could be presented as the poet's 290th birth anniversary, as wished by the incumbent President. At-least one another scholar (Bouma) had made caustic remarks about the poor state of historical scholarship (not specifically concerning Pyragy) in Turkmenistan, frequently serviced towards idiosyncratic political ends and the total stifling of dissenting voices. I had not come across any scholar, who challenges these observations.

Therefore, I think that all such works need to be treated as primary sources (you cannot even trust them on the birth-year!) and used sparingly, if at all. Especially, when the article is a GA. Do I make much sense? All relevant wiki-projects are inactive for years — taking a 3O before going the RfC route. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not famililar with this topic and unfortunately do not have time to the reading necessary. As a matter of principle, though, government sources are always primary sources, unless (and sometimes even if) their authors are scholars in their own right. That really goes for any government at any time, but obviously is particularly true for totalitarian governments. That said, at least some of the sources here seem to be written by scholars. I'd suggest treating them on a case-by-case basis. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!


Happy Halloween!

Hello : Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . The same to you and yours. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Shivaji
You reverted all my edits. Just wanted to know if you assessed all the edits? As I provided some solid sources for some my edits like as in death of Shivaji. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you make a string of edits in which a large number use questionable sources and a good many make unjustified prose tweaks, you can't complain when they all get reverted. Please participate in the talk page discussion and try to reach a consensus about the content you want to change. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Clpo13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news
 * Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. 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 2022 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent AfD
Hi Vanamonde93. Just so you're aware, you're being targeted on social media here for your recent deletion at Articles for deletion/Julie Solomon. This is an unfortunate side effect of a simmering, long-term content dispute on the article Johnathan Schaech, which recently boiled over at WP:COIN. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And here I was thinking it was a straightforward AfD...thanks for letting me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a right mess... COI edits from SPAs going back years, WP:OWN issues with the article subject, new users apparently canvassed, accusations of bad faith and harassment... ugh. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the COIN discussion, and noped right out. I haven't the time for that nonsense at the moment: god knows I get enough similar crap in the ARBIPA world. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeking assistance in bundling articles
Hello, you recently closed an AFD Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre, based on that i started a AFD a in smaller(did before check) of 25 articles,  Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination), unfortunately i went wrong somewhere and can't link up a related page such Megab massacre to the deletion discussion page, if i remove/replace or change the AFD message according to the steps, it will show an error(i did show preview to check). Can you assist in linking that article to the deletion discussion page, so that i can learn from the diff and repeat for the other 23 articles?? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on template syntax, so you may wish to post to WT:AFD as well. To begin with, though, you should close the templates in the list of articles you have ( {{la|2020 Shire massacre -> {{la|2020 Shire massacre}} ) and also replace "page=2020 Wukro Maray massacre (2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) nomination)" with "page=2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination)" on each of the nominated pages. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|Vanamonde93}} Bless you 1000 times! You have no idea what a dreaded process it was. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WiG Editathon Barnstar

 * Thank you for all the effort you put into organizing that! Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Page review
Vanamonde, you had reviewed the Shivaji in 2018 for GA and had raised several points. Can I work on them and mark them done, if I improve it?

For example, you raised a point "a conflict between the Afghans and Bijapur" Bijapur and Afghanistan are a long, long way apart, and have the Mughal empire between them. What's going on here?"

"Having recovered from an illness, and taking advantage of a conflict between the Afghans and Bijapur, Shivaji raided Athani, in April 1676." is wrongly interpreted from the source and the mistake is likely happened while summerising the content. The source states - "The civil war that had broken out between the Deccani and Afghan parties at Bijapur, was Shivaji's opportunity." Akshaypatill (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to try to fix any of the concerns raised, but any attempt to get this to GA status will require an entirely new review. Also, this should be obvious, but some of the recent debates on the talk page are going to be a barrier to GA status unless they're resolved; and relying on severely outdated sources is not going to help. Also, though I was uninvolved enough to review the article in 2018, I will not be undertaking any new GA reviews. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

'Indo-Aryanism' page
I wish to make some changes to the 'Indo-Aryanism' article to enable legitimate factual information on the page. It seems that the article is infested with baseless claims and factual errors and I intend to bring out the facts. I also cited my changes. I want to know why the page is being reverted back to its original version. I would request you to allow me to make the necessary changes. Thanks. Concurrence (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the various messages and links left on your talk page, and if you have not already done so, the following policies and guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Fundementally, the changes you wish to make are not consistent with what high-quality sources say on the topic. As such, those changes are not appropriate, and you should not persist in trying to make them. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news
 * Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page.
 * The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
 * The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Republican Party (United States)&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Crosby Noble
M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  01:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This was a nice welcome upon logging in today :) Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, although all I did was post the notification while the bot was down. Thanks are more directly applicable to others, including who nominated the article and named you as co-creator, and  who reviewed the nom and added your credit template.  M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

rationale for closure Articles for deletion/South Sudan-Spain relations
Hi Vanamonde,

I saw that you closed Articles for deletion/South Sudan-Spain relations as a delete discussion on a 2-1 !vote, in which I took part, and where I find the balance of proof given by delete and keep voters to amount to a no consensus/relist. I take issues with the following:


 * The nominator did provide give a valid deletion rationale (in other AfDs this was widely agreed upon: see Articles for deletion/Kenya–Spain relations, Articles for deletion/Mozambique-Spain relations, Articles for deletion/Guinea-Spain relations, among others);
 * I have no reason to believe that Libstar ever saw my keep !vote nor my sources;
 * Yilloslime offered no further explanation as to why he thought sources 1-8 did not amount to SIGCOV;
 * You did not leave any comment with respect to these deficiencies and did not justify your close decision, which suggests that you either solely took a quantitative look at the votes, or made a qualitative judgement on the sources (in which case one would expect a qualitative ruling about said sources).

I hope you will be able to shed some light on how you closed this AfD, as I am considering a nomination at DRV. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In short, the sources you provide are covering specific incidents that may be related to the topic of Spain-South Sudan relations, but not necessarily the topic as a whole. Also, the sources already in the article were entirely primary sources. As such Yilloslime's comment was apt. The nominator's comment was poorly phrased, but I assigned very little weight to it; note that the headcount would have been 3:1 if that were counted. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To address your central point, which is that the article covers specific interactions that are not related to the topic as a whole (which you call "incidents"): per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The sum of topically separate interactions between states, if covered in-depth, will amount to GNG if they are multiple and sustained - in the same way that an separate coverage about an artist's youth, career, criminal record, and death will amount to significant coverage of the subject of a biographical article. I get your point about WP:PRIMARY, and while secondary sources are preferred, nothing within Wikipedia bars the use of primary sources when discussing elements of the relationship which require no interpretation, such as the fact that Spain has an embassy in South Sudan (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for example). You agree that the nomination rationale was flawed - although I argue the nomination as a whole was invalid. You don't seem to disagree that Yilloslime's came without the burden of proof either. We however both agree that it wasn't a 3:1 vote but a 2:1 vote given that the submitter's rationale was procedurally flawed, hence invalid. You haven't addressed my point about Libstar, either. As a result, with respect to my interpretation of the GNG, AfD precedent, the flawed nomination, and the !vote distribution, I will be taking it to DRV for review. Pilaz (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You may do that if you feel the need, but I suggest that a similar amount of effort may be better spent finding better sources than were presented at AfD, and rewriting the article based on those. If you can find any material in scholarly sources or international-relations journals, that would go a long way toward establishing notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season
 Happy Holidays text 2.png

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your fellow editors' talk pages.


 * Thanks,, the same to you and yours! Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Indef or TBan
Check out Special:Contributions/N1234567. Edits like this despite my warning, hours earlier. There is not a single positive contribution. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was quite concerned when I saw this user for the first time, but has kindly taken care of them already. Thanks Valereee! Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. :) —valereee (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021


 "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version) 

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Mediation request
Hi Vanamonde93

If you have a moment free at some stage, I was wondering if I could ask if you might be able to act as a mediator in relation to a disagreement around a page (a few other pages might be caught up in it as well, I think).

My apologies about the brevity of my message, I have to leave now. But if you are free, let me know and I'll see if I am able to post the details in the near future.

Thanks for your attention

Regards

Inchiquin (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm really stretched for time at the moment, so unless it's a page I'm already familiar, I must refuse. Apologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Vandemonde, no problem.


 * Is there anyone else you can think of who might be available? Inchiquin (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try the dispute resolution noticeboard? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ref tools
I was planning to translate all the GA content at French article about species of nuthatches, and nominate some of them into GA like Blue nuthatch. Was planning to go next on White-browed nuthatch, but are there any ref tools to use when citing properly like DOI or books? I already translated content from french article of Krüper's nuthatch, but had no idea how to cite them properly. Also, Merry Christmas! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:E8E1:53A4:6D0F:9E49 (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I could be more helpful here; I have two tools linked from my userpage for dois and google books urls respectively. I used to use them a lot, but they haven't functioned for a while, and I don't know of replacements. Perhaps a talk page stalker knows of one? Merry Christmas to you too. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Use the Cite tool in the Visual Editor or 2017 wikitext editor. Otherwise, Citer works decent. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears to be working only on other ref, but others doesn't help sadly. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:BC76:55E:123B:1CE4 (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam half of the ref works, thank you. I already translated all the content from French article. If you guys have a time to spare, I'll be much appreciated when Krüper's nuthatch citations are fixed. Again Merry Christmas! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:557A:CBB9:4DCF:663E (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Vlach language in Serbia&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 01:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)