User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 47

Closure of Vita Zaverukha deletion discussion
Thank you for closing this discussion. However, I'm not very satisfied with the closure. The article is about a low profile individual with substantial content devoted to their alleged involvement in a crime (for which they have not been convicted, or even brought to trial for) - I think this is quite a clear WP:BLPCRIME violation. People arguing for keep, and your closure, did not address the WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME issues, or only very weakly. An article needs to comply with WP:BLP, and as a policy that takes precedence over a guideline. Tristario (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you think it's a BLPCRIME violation, but that argument does not have consensus, primarily because some evidence of notability was provided that predated any accusations of a crime. I explained my reasoning quite thoroughly, and I'm not really interested in doing so again. You may of course go to DRV, but I suggest that if you're concerned about BLPCRIME, then your time is better spent trying to fix the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note I'm saying this on the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, not WP:CRIME. Evidence of notability predating accusations of crime only covers WP:CRIME, that's irrelevant to whether something complies with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP as a whole. You didn't address anything about the WP:BLP arguments in your closure, besides WP:BLP1E, just the notability arguments. Establishing notability does not mean that something isn't a WP:BLP violation Tristario (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not discuss BLPCRIME in my closure because BLPCRIME is a policy relevant to what content is present in an article, and how it's written, not whether the article exists. It is quite irrelevant to notability. Your !vote asked for clear consensus that the article was not a violation; well, such consensus was found to exist. In any case: you seem to be trying to persuade me of your argument, whereas the people you really needed to persuade were the 13 who argued to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I noted WP:DEL-REASON in my vote, which says that a breach of WP:BLP is a reason to delete an article. So WP:BLPCRIME is relevant to whether an article is kept, and that's an argument that I made in my vote. Tristario (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, your argument didn't gain consensus, I'm afraid, and I find it personally unpersuasive. The mere presence of accusations isn't sufficient to make a page deletion-worthy when other claims to notability have been presented, and the material is well sourced. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern here is, currently the article is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. If you remove the crime stuff, then you have an article of a living person dedicated only to a single contentious event, which I think is also a clear WP:BLP violation. So what is there to do now? I'd like to fix the WP:BLP issues, which I raised in the deletion discussion, but currently I'm finding it difficult to think about how they can fixed Tristario (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes consensus doesn't go your way; there are several pages I personally believe to be policy violations, but which I would never get a consensus to delete. I would suggest opening a discussion on the talk page seeking to address the accusations specifically, and not trying to get rid of the article altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In your view, do you think there is any chance of success in taking it to WP:DRV? Tristario (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not recommend it. Consensus was fairly clear in my view; looking to overturn consensus in a contentious topic rarely is a productive exercise. However, I cannot stop you. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your time, I probably won't take it there. At some point I'll see what I can do to try to make the article more WP:BLP compliant Tristario (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being willing to consider what I said. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

2018 Barbadian general election
Hello. Re the IP's edits, there was a discussion about excluding the parties not winning seats from the infobox at Talk:2022 Barbadian general election. I agree these things should be usually discussed, but the onus is on the IP (under BRD) and my experience is that IPs rarely (if ever) engage in talk page discussion. They cited two examples in their edit summary, but I could point to hundreds of articles that contradict them. Number  5  7  18:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps I'm not communicating entirely clearly my problem here. As an ordinary editor, I would make that revert without worrying about it, because I know you're probably conversant with the precedent. For me to make a revert as an administrative action, however, I'd need a more clear-cut situation. I have no indication that the IP was even invited to the talk page. As I said, if you were to post there and the IP were to fail to engage, I would make the revert, or place a block if they continue to edit-war without engaging. I'm also okay with shortening the protection. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Why thank you, . I was rather expecting howls of outrage, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I too was surprised at the thorough nature of the close. Is it OK to pick your brains regarding the slavevoyages website and its use for GNG? I'd like to protect slave-ships from being deleted wherever possible and the slavevoyages website, despite being a thorough academic resource, seems to be a hard sell. Desertarun (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a problem with that source as such; the problem was the dearth of encyclopedic information, and the lack of other sources. I accept, as I believe do most participants at that AfD, that the history of slave ships is an encyclopedic topic worth documenting. However, what does the precise dates of voyages, and the names of personnel, tell us? And beyond that, what information did the article have which couldn't be hosted as part of a list? A well-formatted and comprehensive list of slave ships could include all of it, and would likely serve readers better, by supplying all the information in a single place. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, so the articles need to have more 'human interest' if I can put it like that, and more sources in general. I will bear that in mind, regards, Desertarun (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)



CAPTAIN RAJU (T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Theta Kappa Sigma Sorority
Good morning. An editor had placed an AfD tag on the page, Theta Kappa Sigma Sorority, unwarranted, in my opinion, and did so during the busy holiday season when I and others who participate in the Fraternity and Sorority Project may have been occupied with real life. Frankly, I think this was a cheap shot, by the original tagger, and should have gone a few weeks of discussion prior to administrative action to delete as closed. You closed it on Dec 24, after a week. Resistance to such deletions is significant, but project participants are not as aggressive in patrolling at all times.

My objection, which I am fully willing to explain on an AfD discussion page, is that the group had certainly been notable, and that notability isn't lost over time. The article had sources that were reliable, and drawn from third-party references. This is simply a group that has no current school chapters, but has a number of remaining alumnae participants. There is no driving need to delete the article for supposed lack of space. Hence, I would vote to keep. Would you re-post, that we may have a discussion on the matter? Thank you, and thank you for your efforts as an admin. Jax MN (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to waste community time at AfD unless there's credible evidence of notability in the form of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; can you provide such? Mere mentions and citations from affiliated sources are not enough. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. Please don't make any accusations about the nominator; 1 week is by far the most common duration for a deletion discussion, and the holiday season affects all editors, not just members. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 in Philippine television protected article update.
We need to require the longest extension period under the protected article on 2023 in Philippine television to prevent vandalism or disruptive editing.

By the way, 2022 in Philippine television is almost over but the upcoming article has relaunched and reviewed after its redirected or on draft for one month grace period.

I will support for the team up contribution for the latest updates.

Thank you,

Jon2guevarra Jon2guevarra (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is already protected till 1 January; if disruption happens after that, we can consider a longer period of protection. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much! We'll keep you updated after January 1. Jon2guevarra (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. May I ask why you refer yourself as "we"? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, we have a repeatedly vandalized posted from 2023 in Philippine television as of now and someone who have gone illegally posted under upcoming shows from APIs numbers. Please activate the protected article immediately!
 * Thanks,
 * Jon2guevarra Jon2guevarra (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it has already been protected. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era
Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era!  bishzilla  ROA R R! !   pocket 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Happy New Year, Vanamonde93!


Happy New Year! Vanamonde93, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or 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) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Vanamonde93!


Happy New Year! Vanamonde93, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 17:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 17:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Theodora Kroeber scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 February 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/February 17, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg ComplexRational · Extraordinary Writ
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Stephen
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrew Yong · Dbenbenn · DESiegel · GlassCobra · Joe Decker · Nancy · Pathoschild · StuffOfInterest · William Pietri · Wwwwolf · Xdamr

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



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Moneytrees


 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector · SilkTork

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GeneralNotability · Moneytrees
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Guerillero · SilkTork

Guideline and policy news
 * Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration
 * Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.
 * The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
 * The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
 * Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK Queue
Hi, please add to the top of the prep you transferred to the queue. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh you just did. Nevermind. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To avoid edit-conflicts, I move the hooks to the queue, check them, and only then tag the queue, which I've now done. The logic being that if I got called away from the computer, for some reason, another admin would need to step in. I would personally prefer to do checks in prep, where anyone can fix issues, but I won't risk the double effort unless all DYK admins commit to doing checks there. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa
The last sentence of your close isn't clear--would you mind rewording it with an explicit reference to policy? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's unclear about it? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "plot summaries, even when sourced, are essentially coverage of the work, not the fictional aspects thereof" I'm unclear what that means--as in, what the difference is signified by the distinction, assuming for the sake of argument that it does make a difference--and the policy basis for the statement as a whole. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It means, very simply, that a reliable source summarizing the plot of a work of fiction, is likely to count as SIGCOV of that work of fiction, but not usually the characters, setting, etc. The policy basis is WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. It is also long-standing practice at AfD and elsewhere; we delete, redirect or merge articles that contain nothing but plot summary. It sounds like you're unhappy with my closure, but given the !votes in that discussion, I really don't see any other possibility there. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I disagree, I am sincerely trying to make sure I do before I say I do. :-) As far as the article outcome, I disagree that redirection should have been forced by AfD, but I don't think that's a terrible outcome. I'm not interested in taking it to DRV, I just want to understand your policy interpretation as expressed in that final statement:
 * Wikipedia plot summaries fail NOTPLOT; WAF is MOS and as such is irrelevant in deletion discussions--any reference to a MOS in an AfD is a tacit agreement that a topic belongs in Wikipedia, because we first have to agree that a topic is to be presented before we get into nuances of how to present it, but I digress. On the other hand, if you're saying an RS that is primarily or entirely a plot summary doesn't count for the notability of the fictional elements described therein, I'm not seeing how that derives from NOTPLOT or any other policy. Is that what you're saying, and, if so, could you help me a bit more understand what other policies or guidelines lead you to this conclusion? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keeping an article requires being able to write a policy-compliant article about it; if we can't, redirecting or merging is appropriate. NOTPLOT isn't about Wikipedia plot summaries, it's about what content is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and content that is summary-only is not appropriate; that's what the fan wikis are for. WAF is MOS, but it's not irrelevant; it's the same principle of whether a policy-compliant article is possible. To put it another way; a source that provides a plot summary and nothing else may be reliable, but it's not providing intellectually independent content, and isn't fulfilling that aspect of SIGCOV. This, also, has long-standing precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I don't necessarily disagree with most of this, but I don't see how it fits as part of a closing statement, nor that what you wrote in your closing statement clearly communicates this. The part I do disagree with is that you're misrepresenting what SIGCOV actually says with respect to independence: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Thus, a plot summary by an independent entity (e.g. CBR) is sufficiently independent for RS/SIGCOV purposes. The other argument I've seen, which I'm not suggesting you raise, is that plot summaries are primary. That is, to use a technical term, hogwash. One simply cannot summarize anything without making decisions about what is important and what is not, which is textbook WP:SECONDARY. Plot summaries in RS are better sources (per our policies) than your statement seems to give them. So, that's my feedback and your optional food for thought. I'd still recommend clarifying the final sentence of your closing statement, but realistically I'm not sure who besides me will care. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we can agree to disagree. If there's clarification required anywhere, I'd say it is in how we understand GNG for fictional topics; but the way we have been applying it is the way I explained it above. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Redd
I am working on re-verifying the content at Charles Redd. I see how I became confused. So far, two of the things I fixed were in other sources in the article. It also looks like I need to re-learn when primary sources can be used. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing so, but I don't know that there's much to blame you for,, you didn't write the article, did you? Random source spotchecks are a bit outside the remit of a promoter, I'd say; we should be able to take it on good faith that the nominator and reviewer did their due diligence. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I started checking as many sources as I could because I was afraid that someone would partially blame me. I fixed everything except for one sentence, which I'm hoping the nominator has a reference. Mixing up what each source had while reviewing made my head hurt. I guess you're right, but I do feel annoyed at myself that I thought those primary sources were acceptable for what they were citing. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really hope the nominator looks in, because I think they, or someone else, need to check basically every reference. Five of the six checks I made had problems; so fixing them is a start, but I don't think it's enough. Also, to be fair to you, the primary source is the issue only in one case. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really wish DYK would have consensus to close problematic nominations after a certain number of months. I do know that I'm in the minority though, but not among prep builders (well, there are usually only four main prep builders). SL93 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support such a proposal; indeed, I thought I did, at the last relevant discussion... Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for forgetting. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was pleasantly surprised to see another editor promoting six nominations to a prep today. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nekivik (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why you notified me; I only closed a related discussion, I didn't participate, so I don't have any opinions on this article. Vanamonde (Talk)

Your GA nomination of Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration
The article Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration for comments about the article, and Talk:Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

TFA Semi-protection
Hello Vanamonde93,

Per your edit summary, I don't believe today's featured article should be semi-protected. All TFAs are vandalized some; the rate doesn't appear to be exceptionally unusual here. A long-standing proposal is to semi-protect all TFAs, and it's been rejected, because we don't want to have a user's first experience with Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, is for it to be not editable. When TFAs are semi'd, it's because they have an incredible rate of vandalism - like 10x normal, just constant vandalism, basically something like when Hillary Clinton was the TFA. The rate of vandalism on Farseer trilogy doesn't seem that crazy to me, so I don't believe semi-protection is warranted, just lots of reverting. SnowFire (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've brought the issue up on Administrators%27_noticeboard. Sorry, I'm not normally this impatient, but I figured that this is an issue that requires a speedier resolution, and your diff suggested a review of the action at AN.  SnowFire (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was offline. I'm entirely okay with you having raised it at AN. A minor clarification, though; I saw the vandalism because I had watchlisted the page while working on it. I reverted one instance of vandalism, saw the history in doing so, and decided protection was needed. RFPP had several pending requests, so I protected it myself. The IAR referred to my setting aside WP:INVOLVED, not the protection policy. I then cleared out the RFPP backlog, and in doing so noticed that Farseer trilogy was listed there, so I left a note as to what I had done. I do agree that TFAs in general do not need protection, but there was vandalism/tests from four different users over 2.5 hours; it felt needed. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Farseer trilogy, "about a well-known fantasy series from the 1990s: to place in context, it was published a year before A Game of Thrones. Robin Hobb's style is quite different from GRRM's."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, indeed, quite different! Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

General advice for resolving content disputes?
I was wondering if you had general advice for resolving content disputes. I asked buidhe because she's the first person that comes to mind when I think of someone whose done a lot of content work, but she suggested I come to you. So I'm here. Everything ended up working out at Talk:St. Catharines but I was wondering if there's a better way to try and approach things? I think that I could've done something differently there and I feel like maybe trying to get someone else involved that way was the wrong call. Do you have any advice for similar situations? Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . That was kind of Buidhe to say so. I looked over the discussion you mention, and I don't think you did anything wrong. It's difficult to write comprehensively about a topic that isn't covered in detail by secondary sources. Under those circumstances, there is a lot of room for editorial judgement, and so when two people disagree asking a third to weigh in is a very good idea. FWIW, in the absence of a secondary source covering the city's history in detail, I would tend to agree with you; the treaty seems relevant. Without in any way suggesting these are what you should have done in this case, here's some suggestions you could consider in future situations. a) Ask for input at the discussion page of a relevant wikiproject. b) Try as far as possible to rely on independent secondary sources, when you're trying to determine what is relevant and what isn't; of course, this isn't always possible. c) Try to find subject experts on Wikipedia. These don't always exist, and even "experts" may get it wrong, but there's value to the opinion of someone without a dog in the fight but with some relevant knowledge. d) RfCs have a bad reputation, because we tend to be aware of only the messiest ones; but it's not a terrible idea to start one when you have a clearly defined question such as this, if other methods of consensus-building fail. e) Perhaps counter-intuitively, I generally recommend against WP:3O or WP:DRN. As non-binding processes, they aren't enough to address really entrenched disputes, and where participants are willing to compromise, those processes just slow down discussion. Hope this helps. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response. I tend to doubt myself a lot but looking back I probably wouldn't have pinged an editor to the discussion they weren't involved in because it just doesn't seem very courteous... that's why I wanted to know about other avenues. But apart from that, I think I dealt with it well. I'm not really used to having article talk page discussions because most of my edits feel like they go into some kind of void when it comes to content instead of receiving any sort of feedback. I really do appreciate the detailed response. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean; my most significant content work has often received no response at all; and while I have had a lot of talk page disagreement, it has not infrequently been over the most inconsequential edits, or over objections that have the least basis. As for getting a third opinion; I'm not infrequently pinged to discussions, but usually by editors who know me and in topics I have a history of participation in. A talk page message may receive a better response, so long as you're wording it in accordance with WP:CANVAS. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting obersvation about talk page disagreement. The last time I argued about anything, it was this. I felt like I was going crazy having to argue that describing someone's occupation as a cult leader was not a good idea. I was sick at the time (I mean this literally) so I was able to keep up with updates more than I otherwise would have been able to since I was in bed for most of the day. I think it was a more upsetting experience because it felt like I couldn't step away from it as easily. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox parameters are really poorly suited for controversial information; anything that really needs a coherent sentence to be understood clearly fits poorly into those parameters. So I'm with you there too. Stepping away can be useful though, and it's something I struggle with myself at times, along with probably most experienced users. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that infoboxes aren't really suited to controversial information. I think part of what made me feel so strongly about how wrong that situation felt was because there wasn't even context in the article for it apart from a brief statement about how they founded a UFO religion. I was honestly surprised that removing "cult leader" from the infobox as an occupation was considered a controversial change. But that was then.
 * Anyways, I do think that in general, people argue because they think their opinion has merit. Or they wouldn't be arguing. What's obvious to one person isn't always obvious to another. People have different ways of approaching similar situations and input from others can be quite useful. Also sometimes there can be miscommunications that will just kind of escalate until people realize they actually agree with each other. I think that having more eyes on articles tends to make them better even if debate can be frustrating. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

How do I find the reason of deletion?
Hi, I'm trying to find the reason for deletion of Griffpatch. How can I find this out? Utter Donkey (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted as the result of this discussion, which you participated in. There was a consensus there that the subject did not meet our notability threshold. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. What was the purpose of it being reviewed as part of the new page patrol then? Utter Donkey (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's how our process works. A New Page Patroller gives an article a quick once-over, and if it passes that scrutiny it's marked as patrolled. But any article can be nominated for deletion, even one which is a decade or more old, if it does not seem to meet our standards, especially of reliable sourcing. (And blog posts, answers on Quora, etc. do not meet our standards of reliability, nor do posts and interviews by the subject of the article.) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:The Grayzone&#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 07:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See
- it all seems to come from the same editor in Italy. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It does indeed, protected. There's at least two ranges involved, so I don't want to attempt a range block even if it's only one person. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Arthur Humphries
Following deletion of the disambiguation page, I have speedily moved the rugby player to that title, so if you see that it is still a blue link, that's why. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Northcote Primary School
Hi - your close didn't address the reliably sourced statement of this being notable under WP:GEOFEAT...a relist was not possible there?. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * GEOFEAT#1 is a weak argument for a local primary school; among other things, the criterion refers to areas of cultural or national importance, when the database says its of "local historical importance", in reference to the Municipality of Northcote, population 25,000. I'm not dismissing it outright, but you'd need a lot more for me to ignore four other policy-bases !votes for deleting/redirecting. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for replying and having a look further into this. Fair point, it's reasonable to contrast the national level criterion with the register noting its local status. One clarification: not sure where you sourced 25,000 from, but the locality, for the register's purposes, is the City of Darebin, population 148,570 (2021 census). One final comment: with the register entry, plus the following items, which provide detail on an industrial dispute in the 1970s involving the school , , would you consider within the realm of GEOFEAT #2? To be clear, it's not a DRV issue for me, more an inquiry out of interest. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I got 25k from Northcote, Victoria, and I suppose I could be wrong, as the database could be referring to a different entity. Nonetheless, it's saying local importance, which to me is clearly is at a small scale. As for GEOFEAT#2, I don't think there's any a priori reason the topic couldn't be notable, but I'm not seeing it with these sources, they're tangential to the subject at best. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks again for replying. Northcote is a suburb, City of Darebin is the local government area which includes the suburb of Northcote, in this case the hertiage register is referring to local government level. We can quibble about this being tangential: in Victoria between the 1960s and 1990s there were significant industrial disputes around changes in education (teacher numbers, closures of schools, inadquate provision of amenities), which played out quite intensively around particular schools - among other things, these cited articles detail incidents of police arresting parents at the school involved in protests linked to the teachers' union. At the same time, it might be that this material could be better used at a potential article on the Victorian Teachers Union. Enough said, kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)