User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 42

If you have a few minutes to spare, perhaps you could help?
Good day Vanamonde, I hope you are well?

Sorry to disturb you again, I am aware you mentioned to me that you were busy last time. However, while my last request was time consuming and involved, please note that this request is less so, and thus less burdensome.

If you are wondering why I have contacted you, it is because my request relates to one article that I know that you are familiar with. The article is that of Revolt Motors which was in the draft section of Wikipedia, until you gave it the green light, for which I am appreciative.

First up, I should notify of a development in relation to the Revolt page, which is of major consequence for this article and a couple of other related articles.

In recent days, one Wiki editor has slapped a tag on the Revolt Motors page, stating that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. and This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use.

At a glance, these tags give the impression that they reflect some kind of consensus view. However, this is not at all the case. It is important to note that it is just one editor who is behind this push.

If you look at the Super Soco AFD page, you’ll see his arguments around COI are summarised in the first three lines.

Suspected WP: UPE - because creator is also connected with Revolt Motors and Vmoto - both distributors of Super Soco electric bikes in India and Australia respectively.

I attempted to explain to the editor in question that his argument behind the UPE and COI tags are mistaken, and that Revolt Motors is not the distributor of Super Soco bikes in India, they are an independent company and are a competitor to Vmoto.

To give an example of what I am referring to, see the link below. What this illustrates is that Vmoto are in fact in competition with Revolt in India:

''Vmoto is an Australian two-wheeler manufacturing group that largely makes electric scooters. The company recently signed an MoU with the Indian company Bird Group, and will discuss collaborating for the distribution of two of its products – Super Soco CUmini and Super Soco CUx.''

Source: https://gaadiwaadi.com/super-soco-cumini-electric-scooter-india-launch-confirmed/

My attempts to explain this seem to have fallen on deaf ears, he responded by stating  Let's hold the horses and wait for others' assessment. In other words, even this editor seems unwilling to openly reject my assertion that the UPE tag is questionable.

The argument of the editor around Revolt is based on a source that referring to a supply chain link between Super Soco. However, these links are common in the automotive industry, and especially in a small, emerging industry as is the case with the e-motorcycle space.

Many aspects of these companies are uncertain, however, There is no question that Revolt Motors and Vmoto Soco are independent companies (in fact, the same is true of Vmoto and Super Soco, although these do have a partnership relationship, albeit one which seems to be breaking down).

Revolt Motors was founded by Rahul Sharma, the founder of Micromax Informatics and the spouse of Asin. He is a major figure in India, and he isn't the patsy of some Chinese start up like Super Soco.

Essentially, the UPE and the COI tags on the page are based on the claim that Revolt is the Super Soco distributor in India, which is certainly not the case. In fact, Revolt is not even the same brand as Super Soco.

The reason I feel compelled to mention this to you, is because if the Super Soco or Revolt article is pulled down based on the dodgy UPE claim, the editor who is pushing for the removal of Super Soco/Revolt (and it is largely being driven by the one fellow) will probably then go on to delete all these articles, using the removal of the first page as justification.

What concerns me about this is that the UPE tag on a Wikipedia page is like the kiss of death. Most visitors to the page will not realise that there is just one editor behind this, and some will surely nominate the article for delete, based on this mistaken view that there is a well-founded consensus. At the very least, potential supporters will get cold feet and not want to get involved in the debate once they see the UPE tag. I am sure that the article is unlikely to survive while this questionable tag is hovering over it.

What I am requesting, is would you be able to offer some support in this?

If you could post a 'Keep' request on the Revolt Motors page that would be a help for sure. I think a credible and experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself posting a 'keep' on the article is probably the only thing that will save the article from deletion.

Keep in mind, if the article is deleted with the UPE tag still on it, it will be very hard for it to re-emerge on Wikipedia. This is why this is such a big deal.

One aspect that makes this a bit challenging is that is that there is a lot of mis-information about Vmoto, Super Soco and Revolt, many writers don't understand the relationship between them, and it is possible to 'cherry pick' poor quality sources to mount an argument that there is a relationship between Revolt and Super Soco/Vmoto.

If you are too busy to assist, or don't want to stick your neck out, that is fine, I can understand that.

Thanks for your attention, wishing you a good Christmas/New Year break.

Regards Inchiquin (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , to be honest, your post here is somewhat concerning. I appreciate that you feel attached to pages you have written, but your posts here and elsewhere are not compliant with our guideline about canvassing support. The lengths to which you are going to find support for your point of view, rather than on improving the content in question, will justifiably make uninvolved editors wonder about your motivations. If you are only here to write about electric bike companied because you are interested in them, the best thing you could possibly do is to focus on companies for which solid sourcing is available, and to work on building that content in as policy-compliant a manner as possible. I'm not going to comment on the deletion discussion, as your request that I !vote "keep" has somewhat tainted any opinion I may leave. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Vandemonde, thank you for taking the time to respond to my message. I think I probably should explain in more detail exactly what prompted me to send my previous request.


 * First off, let me show you something that I noticed on one website last week:


 * ''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Lab and the Munk School


 * ''This set of AfDs is difficult. Thank you for pinging me. I think that merging is the correct outcome, though you may disagree. The articles have value, but I do not believe any of the three of them have independent notability outside the university Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Timtrent. I was quite skeptical that's why I pinged you and DGG. Now, I'm in total agreement with the "merge" call. -Hatchens (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I found this conversation on this website: https://www.wikizero.com/en//User_talk:Hatchens


 * The reason this is significant is because Hatchens is the editor who has been pushing for the deletion of the Revolt/Super Soco articles. The Fiddle Faddle fellow above has subsequently placed 'Delete' votes on all three articles, Vmoto, Revolt Motors, and Super Soco.


 * I did not realise that canvassing for support on Wikipedia was not accepted practice, and so I apologise for the earlier request. However, the reason I did not comprehend that this was out of bounds is because it is quite clear that a number of the editors who are calling for the deletion of these three articles have been doing exactly that. See the comment from Hatchens about ...that's why I pinged you...


 * It is fairly obvious from the conversation that I pasted above that there is a clique of editors are co-ordinating their actions in order to achieve a pre-ordained outcome.


 * If this conduct is not acceptable, as you have indicated previously, then where do I go to to flag this? Inchiquin (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The places to go for behavioral issues are WP:ANI if they're urgent, and WP:AN if they're long-term. However, I would recommend against going there. There's a big difference between sending a personal message to an uninvolved editor asking them to !vote in a particular way (as you did), and pinging editors who are known as experts on corporate notability (as Hatchens did). Also, while overzealousness with respect to deletion is not unknown, the editors you are referring to have likely been on Wikipedia longer than the corporations we are discussing have been in existence. They have no agenda here besides enforcing what they see Wikipedia policy to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Vandemonde


 * Could I poltlitely suggest that you seem to be looking at this issue through tinted glassed?


 * Upon a close examination of the evidence, I would suggest to you that there is very good reason to believe that there is much around this matter that simply does not add up.


 * On the 23rd, one editor, Fiddle Faddle, posted delete requests on three articles that I've alluded to above, two of which were marked as AFD by the one editor, hatchens. The third article was marked for afd by another editor, although hatchens subsequently added a delete request to the page.


 * The fact that this Mr. Faddle has come to the same conclusion across all three articles struck me as rather odd, even more so given that when pressed, his arguments didn't stack up. For example, he complained that in one instance that the sources were all 'churnalism' and not therefore credible. I engaged with the said editor, asking him how he arrived at the conclusion that all the sources were insubstantial, pointing out that this was clearly not the case, noting that numerous credible sources were cited (in fact, the article in question had no less than 25 references)


 * In his response he basically stated that he effectively saw all journalism as churnalism, a response that did not fill me with a great deal of confidence in relation to the integrity of this editor.


 * What I am highlighting here is that I have gone to quite some effort to try and understand the motivation behind these editors, and why they are targeting these articles, and in most cases, their arguments don't stack up.


 * It was after this that I did a bit of digging, to try to understand why Mr Faddle suddenly emerged out of the woodwork, and on just one day, called for the deletion of all three articles on such vacuous grounds. After doing a quick search, I quickly noticed the website that I mentioned above.


 * I think that an independent observer would find it fairly obvious that Faddle and Hatchens are engaged in a co-ordinated action on these articles. That was certainly the conclusion that I arrived as soon as I read the conversation between Hatchens and Faddle on the aforementioned site. Note that this was only a few days before Faddles pasted his 'delete' requests across all the articles, without any convincing explanation being offered for this sudden strange burst of negative energy (which, strangely enough, was only directed at the three articles that I had created).


 * The second point I feel obliged to raise here is your reaction to my first message. The focus of my first message was on the questionable nature of the UPE tag, posted by Hatchens on the 20th of December. (Please note: this was the same day that Hatchens was in communication with Faddles- see my previous message.). I'm going to paste it here again, because it is a significant issue.


 * Suspected WP: UPE - because creator is also connected with Revolt Motors and Vmoto - both distributors of Super Soco electric bikes in India and Australia respectively.


 * What is stated here is simply incorrect. Revolt is not the distributor of Super Soco in India, full stop. It is not even the same brand. The comment about Vmoto is also raises questions about the authors understanding of these companies, but I'll leave that one aside as it is more complicated.


 * I went to some effort to explain why it was that the UPE tag was unjustified to Hatchens, he has not denied the evidence I presented, and yet he still will not remove the tag.


 * When I first saw your response to my earlier message, you stated ...to be honest, your post here is somewhat concerning... and I assumed you were referring to the abuse of the UPE tag by the aforementioned poster.


 * But no, there was no mention of this. All you seemed to have an issue with was the fact that I asked for support.


 * In my subsequent response, I pointed out to you that I was simply reacting to the same tactic that was being employed by Hatchens, highlighting some fairly incontrovertible evidence indicating co-ordination between Hatchens and Faddles.


 * If you take a step back, and look at the quantum of evidence, I would suggest that a reasonable person would have to conclude that the conduct described above is beyond the pale. One editor has placed a extremely poisonous tag on two articles, which, as illustrated above, is not justified by any means; in addition, there is strong evidence to indicate that a group of editors - which includes the fellow who was behind the UPE tags- is co-ordinating their behaviour to attempt to kill the three articles.


 * I believe that a detached observer would be more likely than not to agree with the conclusion outlined above, in light of all of the evidence.


 * This situation has caused me considerable distress. I am already quite busy in my personal life, and yet I am having to run around in my spare time to try and defend and rework three articles from this clique of hostile editors, which is made even more difficult given that two of the articles have been painted with a highly dubious UPE tag by one of the same group.


 * In closing, I will repeat what I stated above: If you took a step back, and looked at all the evidence without any preconceived notions, I don't believe you would arrive at the conclusion that this is all 'above board'. There is something not right about this. Inchiquin (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Inchiquin, you came to me for help; if you don't like my analysis of the situation, there's not much else for me to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Vanamonde, the problem I have is that you have not analysed the situation. The core of the problem here is that one editor has slapped a UPE tag on two articles for reasons which were fictitious. He refuses to remove the tag, even though he is aware it is not justified.


 * It is virtually impossible to defend an article with an 'undisclosed payment' tag on it on Wikipedia, you know this is true. I am pretty sure that slapping a vacuous UPE tag is an abuse of process on Wikipedia, but more to the point, it is blatantly unethical. In this situation, do you think (as you said in your first response) that I can really work on building that content in as policy-compliant a manner as possible? Do you really think that if I just diligently spend all my time building up more content on these all the wiki users will just suddenly ignore a big red UPE tag on an article an vote to 'keep'? Do you really think that?


 * I fear that you have gotten so caught up in the procedural minutiae of administration that you have completely missed the bigger picture as to what is going on. If you are too afraid to get involved, I can't blame you, but it is disingenuous to turn a blind eye to this and pretend that there isn't something seriously unethical about this type of conduct. Inchiquin (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please drop this issue, or take it to AN/ANI; you seem to think I'm not hearing you, whereas in reality my response to many aspects of the situation is different from yours; so continuing this is not going to be productive for either of us. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Politics of Austria&#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 16:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy nonsense
Blofeld here, you were a prize winner in one of my contests. Hope you're well. Where is the evidence that I pushed conspiracy theories in the mainspace? I provided two mainstream media sources on the talk page documenting Ivermectin, see the list of sources on my talk page. I don't have a history of editing COVID articles, and have rarely spoken of it in two years, some of the diffs were taken out of context. I have agreed to avoid COVID issues in future, but my input is legit.₪ Encyclopædius  20:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Blofeld. I remember well, and appreciate the work you've put into such contests. Edits like this one, though, are less helpful. I don't want to get into an extensive parallel discussion on my talk page: briefly, you've still not acknowledged that the content you wished to add was not in compliance with MEDRS. If you have further questions, I would rather answer them at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Aladikme, Baskil AfD
Brilliant close. Well done. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nice to be appreciated, I'd been cursing myself for spending time on it :) Been a while, hope you're doing well. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, *someone* needed to close it, and for the reasons you outlined at the AfD. I hadn't thought of the NOPAGE angle in the enlightening way you did.  Anyway, yes, doing well, hoping as always to find some time to write a really nice article.  I'll probably settle for article given limitations of talent.  My family is well and healthy, so I have much to be thankful for.  May health and blessings be yours this coming year!   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. One's family being is more than you can take for granted these days...happy new year to you and yours as well! Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era
Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of Whitey on the Moon
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whitey on the Moon 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

On Subramanian Swamy's page.
On Swamy's page you reverted my changes. You said "Swami own writing". But I have cited sources from book "The Emergency : A Personal History" written by Coomi Kapoor. And I have remove some lines where only primary source was present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshrm (talk • contribs) 19:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Coomi Kapoor is not an independent source in this circumstance; Swamy is her brother-in-law . Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Mr. Stradivarius



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Opabinia regalis
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Opabinia regalis
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news


 * Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.


 * Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration


 * Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous


 * The functionaries email list () will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitey on the Moon
The article Whitey on the Moon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Whitey on the Moon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Administrator Help
Hello Vanamonde93,

I was wondering if it would be possible for you to provide input on the administrator's noticeboard as to an ongoing conflict between myself and other users in regards to renamed places in South Africa. Admins have not weighed in yet. I found you on the list of recently active admins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Move_warring_and_tendentious_editing_by_Desertambition

I really feel like this needs a thorough review, especially from an admin like yourself who has not been involved in this discussion previously. Desertambition (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest I was about to log off for a bit; if nobody has responded by the time I'm back on and have a moment, I will take a look. Feel free to ask someone else. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I am incredibly desperate to have an admin weigh in on this who does not have prior involvement. Given the description on your user page, I believe you could potentially clear up a lot of drama. I would urge you to strongly consider weighing in when you come back. I believe the topic is very important, relevant, and deeply misunderstood. Desertambition (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whitey on the Moon
The article Whitey on the Moon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Whitey on the Moon 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Pegasus (spyware)&#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 23:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing of "Move warring and tendentious editing by Desertambition"
Hi Vanamonde,

As you said you would close this discussion, I just wanted to let you know that the above user was blocked, and so the discussion can probably be closed.

Thanks, Spekkios (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did see the block when it happened; I think it renders any closure of an older thread irrelevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

IHR
Maybe, you know of something about BJP hijacking its way into ICHR/IHR?


 * Strangely, I am displayed a banner (using the Replying beta feature): Hang on a minute! Are you here because I deleted a page that you created? If so, it was probably because the page had issues with notability and/or neutrality: so, please read WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTPROMO before you post here. Best regards, Vanamonde. How did you do that? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't read that article, as I'm not a subscriber, but it doesn't surprise me in the least; scholarly sources describe in detail how both NDA governments made it a point to appoint ideologically sympathetic individuals to government bodies overseeing research and education (as indeed does any other government, except their appointees also happen to be mainstream historians). The Edit-notice is a subpage of my user talk, User talk:Vanamonde93/Editnotice; editing these is an admin-only power except in userspace (see Editnotice), so you should be able to create one. I see the link when I open my talk page to edit it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have come across articles by Tanika Sarkar et al detailing NDA Governments' multipronged assault on the production of history in India. That being said, I have not come across anything detailed about the Modi regime in particular. If you know of any RS, lead me :)
 * Edit-notice, interesting. Never recall seeing them so-prominently when editing from VE (or the 2017 text editor) but I see that is a software issue. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't recall off the top of my head a systematic analysis, though there's coverage of individual appointments. I'll let you know if I find any; at some point the policy section of the BJP page will need an update, and I'll have to search for related material. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi TB, please see Yellapragada Sudershan Rao for a start (the previous chair of ICHR). There was a lot of talk about Universities and the ICHR when the Irani lady was the HR minister. After she left, it died down, but probably the infiltration became only more efficient afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Heads up
Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, I have copied your two remaining "To Do" items from the first list on the FAR page to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, and will next send that section to the talk Archive, leaving behind a link. Exciting project; thanks for pitching in! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, that seems fine to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Alpro Pharmacy
Hi, I noticed the page Alpro Pharmacy has been deleted. Alpro Pharmacy is a growing prescription pharmacy chain in Malaysia and it has expanded rapidly especially during the current pandemic. I believe audiences especially Malaysians are interested to know more about the background of this company. Understood that the content of the article and the way I write might have the ‘promotional’ feeling. I sincerely hope that you can restore the page so that I can revise my writing style and give information about the company from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yicelee (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to commit to a) only using reliable sources in your writing, b) making sure you demonstrate that this organization meets our guideline for notability of companies, and c) submitting your article to the articles for creation process, rather than creating it directly? If so, I am willing to give you a copy in your userspace (i.e., the page will be titled "User:Yicelee/Alpro Pharmacy"), and you can work on it at your leisure. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm willing to commit to the above. Appreciate it!
 * Here you go: User:Yicelee/Alpro Pharmacy. Please remember to WP:SIGN your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes, like this: ~ . Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion
A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Best wishes
for a speedy recovery. El_C 06:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated. Been a rough few weeks, but hopefully some light at the end of the tunnel... Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Kabzaa
Vanamonde, could you please look at Kabza (upcoming film) and tell me if this is a duplicate of the earlier deleted pages? Thanks Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a messy history to look through, because there's been two different titles and at least four deletions; but as far as I can tell there's no version that is different enough from the one deleted at AfD that CSD#G4 would no longer apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

FA mentoring request
Hi there! I reviewed the FAC mentor list and you noted that your focus is on "areas of recent political history that don't receive much attention"... so I'm coming to you, because I've just put up an article that I wrote on a New Mexico special election in 1997 for a peer review in preparation for an FAC. I got kind of walloped the last time I sent an article to FAC, and it feels like it's been long enough that I'd like to try again. Know that you're busy, but if you have time, would love your advice on what kind of questions I should be anticipating and how I can better prepare the article for the rigors I should be expecting soon if I put it through the process.

Thanks so much either way for all you do, and take care.  Nomader  ( talk ) 06:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to disappoint, but I'm thoroughly overcommitted right now, in RL as well as on-wiki, and am also unwell. So I'm afraid I can't take this on. I know there's a good many editors who have worked on local or regional elections in the US, and brought them to FA level; perhaps you could go through the list of FAs, and find a nominator who is still active? I also see you've opened a peer review, which is a good thing to do. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely understand-- I left Wikipedia for over a year because of similar reasons. Hope you get well soon and thanks for pointing me in the right direction!  Nomader  ( talk ) 23:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37 • Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed   in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
 * The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration
 * Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
 * The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
 * A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about your close at Articles for deletion/Mike Tinney‎
I must have made the final edit which conflicted with yours. Just wanted to let you know that I feel sorry for that, it's extremely frustrating when that happens.‎ Pilaz (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by, I appreciate it. Not your fault though; you couldn't have known. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When that happens make sure to check the lower box, which usually stores your intended changes - I have been bitten by that plenty, as I'm sure most people have. BOZ (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, edit conflicts don't erase what you wrote. It should still allow you to copy-paste what you had tried to submit and then you can reopen the edit window and resubmit while factoring in the edit before yours. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that's true in general, but not with XfDcloser; at least, not without taking the step that suggests. BOZ, thanks for that, I'll give it a try next time; I've closed a few hundred AfDs, I think this is the first edit-conflict I've had...but there's a first time for everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also "just in case" copy your rationale in case of an edit conflict. I've become paranoid enough to do that in case of making anything of sufficient length. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a solid suggestion. I tend to do that with long noticeboard posts; will probably do it with AfD closures going forward. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Heads up
This vandal just added a comment to an AfD you closed last month. I've reported them at AIV. Just thought you might want to know. I reverted the comment at the afd, and requested it be revdel'd. Sorry you had to put up with that.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What a charming username. Looks like they've been blocked already. Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. No one should have to put up with that crap. Keep up your fine work (even if we don't always agree ).  Onel 5969  TT me 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Project K (film)
Re this closure, I would like to incubate the page in draftspace until it meets the notability guidelines per WP:NFILM. Being an active member of Indian cinema task force, and a regular participate in AfDs, I believe I have a demonstrated understanding of notability guidelines wrt films. Meanwhile, I also intend to redirect the title to its filmmaker Nag Ashwin with covering the subject there. Thanks and regards -- Ab207 (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User:Ab207/Project K (film). Placed in userspace as there's already a draft with that title. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Vanamonde93 -- Ab207 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2022 Hungarian LGBTQ in education referendum&#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 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Starship Troopers
I admit I had to check it myself, but it's been in the infobox for about 14 years (including when it was a featured article), so I think it's probably valid at this point :) Canterbury Tail talk 19:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by. I suppose I could have been a little more detailed; I know the descriptor is used; but I don't know if it's used widely enough that it needs inclusion in the introductory sentence. When I search for those specific phrases together with "Starship Troopers", I find "military science fiction" seems to be used more frequently by a factor of ~20; which to me is enough to consider it the primary descriptor. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is probably fair. I'm not particularly attached in any way to be honest. I'm happy to revert back, or for you to revert back. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd appreciate if you handled it. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And done. Canterbury Tail talk</i> 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Medieval varna status
Hello, Vanamonde user Ekdalin reverted my well-sourced content about the medieval varna status of Kayasthas see .all other editors except Ekdalin said it is well-sourced and important. even Sitush said " Varna status is often fluid both over time and circumstance. Groups may aspire and even campaign and/or manufacture a status; the rest of society may view them differently in different localities; outsiders (notoriously, the Brits) may seek to impose a status. It is all relevant but the key generally, I think, is to be aware that trenchant labelling is rarely good and rarely right ". so it is important to add the medieval varna status of them. even in other caste articles, the medieval varna status is mentioned, but not on this. Nobita456 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , please show me where Sitush and others agreed to the inclusion of the specific content you added. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 21

February 2022 (UTC)
 * LukeEmily said this see, further I asked Sitush is it important to add medieval era purans and literature views to these caste articles at Baidya talk page and he replied this and Satnam also agreed, see. Nobita456 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see in-principal agreement from Sitush for medieval status, but not for that content specifically; LukeEmily suggested it was well-sourced, but only after Ekdalian's revert. As I've told you several times now, if someone disputes content you wish to add, you need to discuss that specific content on the talk page, and obtain consensus for it. Please remember that just because something is verifiable, it does not necessarily deserve inclusion in an article; due weight also needs to be determined. Please also remember to explicitly follow the guidelines at WP:CWW; saying "from Baidya" is a little cryptic. That said:, you need to dial it back a little, too. This comment isn't something that belongs in a collegial editing environment. Engage with the substance of the content, please. If the lot of you cannot come to an agreement, an WP:RFC might be necessary; I can't hold your hands through every stage of a discussion, and is already sick of this dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I initiated a discussion before my edits see . It is important to add their medieval varna status Satnam also agreed with me. Nobita456 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You started a talk page discussion where LukeEmily advised you to follow WP:EDITCON, which is a policy. It advises you to find a compromise, if your edits are reverted, or to open a talk page discussion. Not to run to an admin immediately. I would expect anyone who objects to your edits to engage with them on the talk page; please wait for that to happen. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No one has problem with this edit.except Ekdalian. what is your suggestion? Nobita456 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I just gave you my advice; did you not read it? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If only Ekdalian has problem with my edits.then it should be done by him not me. Nobita456 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If Ekdalian has problems with your edits, he is obligated to discuss them after reverting you, but you are the one who wants to make changes, and as such obtaining consensus is your responsibility. I have explained this to you before, and am getting a little tired of repeating myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Satnam and Luke both agreed with me,I am also tire of Ekdalian.in every caste articles purans views are given,but Ekdalian has problem specifically with this article. Nobita456 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you cannot get along, you are looking at an interaction ban at the very least; which would severely limit your ability to edit content Ekdalian has previously worked on. I don't think you want that; so try to collaborate, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)