User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 48

Re: Conversion of Religious Places of Worship to Mosques
I noticed you deleted my entry on the Ram Temple in Ayodhya with the reason stated as "please see previous talk page discussions on this subject". I was only able to locate another instance when you had done the same for the same topic. Being new here, I could not find any previous talk page discussion. While I request your help in locating the same, I would also like to point out the following about my post:

I am not going to give any explanation for the initial facts like name of temple, name of mosque, location etc. because these are common knowledge. I will explain the content line by line.

The ancient temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu God Ram was demolished and the Babri Masjid built over it in 1528–29.

'- This has been conclusively proven by a survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The detailed information about this is available in their web as well as paper archives. I have contacted them in this regard and they have confirmed the same. Since they are the leading (and only) government agency authorized to issue reports on this subject, I think the above information is to be accepted as fact.'

The original name Masjid-i-Janmasthan literally means 'Mosque of the Birthplace'.

- This is also recorded in Indian historical texts (maybe others too but I cannot ascertain them) and quoted by the main article of the mosque as well.

Court-ordered excavations conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 2003 indicated what appeared to be the presence of a 10th century shrine under the mosque.

- Like I mentioned before, this is published fact and also available on other wikipedia pages to confirm the same.

Demolished. Temple reconstruction in progress.

'- Both are well ascertained facts and important milestones in the religious history of India. And available in other wikipedia pages too.'

I did not want to undo your correction of my entry without first discussing it with you. So kindly read the above explanations and share your concerns with me so that I can either edit what needs to be edited or undo your correction.

Also, I wanted to say that I can understand that the topic in general is a sensitive one, but the facts that are presented to us do not work on sentiment, whoever the accused may be or whoever the injured party may be. And that is what our primary job here is - present the facts (and facts alone) so that people can be informed.

Thanks !

Ihateediting (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . You are correct that Wikipedia's role is to present the facts. However, the way we do that is to summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. Reliable sources do not agree that the Babri Masjid was a converted temple; there is some discussion of a pre-existing Hindu temple, supported by the ASI, but no scholarly source supports the idea that an active temple was demolished for a mosque. If you have reliable sources saying so, please present them on the article talk page. As to past discussions, there are several; there are at least three discussions about the scope about the article, and three others about the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi issue specifically; please read through the talk page archive carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey ! Thanks a lot. After I posted my message to you, I noticed that while my sources confirm the presence of a temple, even they cannot say for sure if it was demolished to make way for the mosque. Although it is most likely what happened (when it happens 1000 times, you kinda figure out that it happens 1001 times too), we still do not have solid proof that this individual event happened which makes the theories about the event just that - theories. And since we are about facts and nothing more, I understand now that we cannot add it.
 * And about the page discussions, since I was new to editing wikipedia, I did not know where to look for the article talk page and kept searching on your talk page !! I found it after my earlier message.
 * But I do have two points to discuss and understand better.
 * Firstly, when we say "reliable sources", how do we affirm their reliability? It is an easy thing to do for a subject like science or engineering where 1+1 has to be 2 and cannot be 4.5 or pi or the letter K. But when it comes to other topics, how do we say which source is reliable and more importantly, how do we discount a source as not reliable? Because the way I see it, reliability of a source on certain topics like ancient history or social issues etc. is almost always dependent on individual perspective.
 * For instance, I read somewhere in that same talk page that court judgments cannot be considered as reliable sources. If that is so, then would we say that Saddam Hussein was hanged for "alleged crimes against humanity" and not "crimes against humanity" ?
 * Or on a subject closer to our initial discussion, someone also said that the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) cannot be accepted as evidence on wikipedia unless they are reviewed and affirmed by other 'reliable' peer archaeological institutes. Who decides the authenticity and expertise of these other archaeological institutes? It is easy to say things like "they are respected worldwide in their field" or "they have received numerous awards" but even those statements are perspectives. What I claim to be a genuine source may be bogus or agenda-driven to someone else. And what you claim to be authentic and reliable may be to me, a biased opinion designed to undermine my thoughts and those of my fellows. Whether we like it or not, in today's world most of the sources are agenda driven. And by agendas, I mean both left and right, east and west, north and south, conservative and liberal and so on. So in such a world, does it not become near impossible to find a truly reliable source that is based purely on facts and not speculation or opinion - especially for topics where ambiguity is not just prevalent but almost integral to the topic?
 * A Real Scenario: The NY Times published some pictures of the second coronavirus wave in India about there not being enough room for pyres and the public cremating their loved ones in the open and in groups. The entire world was outraged and condemned the poor handling of the situation by the Indian government. A week or so later, it was proved via recorded video that the NY Times journos had actually paid ceratorium workers to light pyres in a way that they burned higher and denser for, and I quote, "better pictures". Would this make the numerous awards winning NY Times an unreliable source? Or should we discount the video recording saying it was not done in a proper manner as prescribed by reliable sources for us to ascertain its authenticity?
 * A Hypothetical Scenario: In country X, three guys A,B and C brutally gangrape girl D and leave her to die. They are arrested. The CSI team collects evidence from the crime which links the perpetrators to the act without a doubt and the crime is proven in a court of law. So are they guilty of the crime? Or did they only allegedly commit the heinous act because we do not have a reliable source that can say with certainty that they committed the crime or even that the crime actually occurred?
 * The people of X trust the CSI team's findings and say they are reliable and therefore, say that the crime did indeed occur. But countries Y and Z doubt the expertise and capability of X's CSI team. Does that mean the crime did not happen in Y and Z and definitely happened in X?
 * If we go by populist opinion, then that would basically mean that every topic will be decided by people considered reliable sources by China and India.
 * If we go by awards, then your awardee may be a bigot to someone else.
 * So how does this work?
 * Im skipping the second point for now since.... well..... all that👆🏻 !!! Ihateediting (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We have many considerations to take into account when determining source reliability, which are summarized at WP:RS (please read that page). A very brief summary is that sources need to have editorial oversight; should be intellectually independent of the subject; should be secondary sources; and should be from a reputed publisher. In general, scholarly sources are our best sources, and reputable news media are also usable. No source is expected to be perfect, but the NYT is regarded as a highly reliable source (can you show me where they were proved to have faked the Covid story?). Another resource that is helpful is WP:RSP, which lists usable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the WP:RS and got the basic gist of what constitutes a reliable source.
 * With regard to the NYT thing, I will try to get that information. I also need to check the authenticity of that news before sharing it. But in the meantime,
 * An article from NYT in 2021 clearly states that the actual coronavirus death toll in India exceeds 3 million. - A reliable source
 * According to Our World in Data, coronavirus death toll in India as of January 12, 2023 - 530,723. - A reliable source
 * Only one of them can be right.
 * FYI, Our World in Data is frequently used as a source for data by Washington Post, Economist and... NYT.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/world/asia/india-covid-pandemic-excess-deaths.html
 * https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
 * Of course, if you want to look for other cases where NYT could not be relied upon, may I suggest you read about -
 * The bias towards Soviet Propaganda about the Ukraine famine in the 1930s.
 * The now blatantly obvious Nazi bias during WW2 by refusing to identify Jews as major victims of the Nazi genocide and opposition of the rescue of Jewish refugees.
 * The erroneous 2002 story of weapons of mass destruction being produced by Iraq, which was cited by officials like Powell and Rumsfeld to campaign for the war.
 * You must understand that the point of all this is not to vilify the NYT or any other such news outlet, whichever side they lean on.
 * Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopaedia is an immeasurable service to humanity as a whole. In today's world, leaning towards a set of fixed reliable sources with openly declared political and social leanings identified by sources who's reliability is unchecked makes it look to the rest of the world like it is Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopaedia - Western Edition.
 * Just saying - if we had a WP:RS back in the 1930s, then the NYT would've checked all the right boxes - editorial oversight, intellectually independent, secondary sources, a reputed news media publisher. And for a decade or so, we would've all been promoting Soviet and Nazi propaganda and downplaying the Holocaust. Ihateediting (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Please provide the source. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That speculation is, beyond a point, not very useful; the reliable source criteria are what they are, the NYT is one of the best media sources we can use, and to change either of those things you would need a community-wide discussion. With respect to Covid data specifically; Our World in Data is obviously reproducing the Indian government's statistics, whereas the NYT's estimate comes from scholarly sources, including a paper in Science. We prefer scholarly sources to government ones, so we would give more weight to the figure the NYT reported. Or we should; many of our pages are not policy-compliant in this area. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha ! I see you've made up your mind. Western Edition it is ! For me, the "point beyond" that you speak of travels a bit further than yours.
 * Wanted to share just one more thing to end this discussion - In that previous talk page discussion you referred me to about the temple, there is one comment that I found particularly interesting.
 * And it went like this - "And here come the Islamophobic fanatics misinterpreting things as usual." That is not just an opinion; it is gradually becoming a sentiment.
 * Forest for the trees, my friend.
 * Good talk. Ihateediting (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @V93: Obviously, there exists no source for the particular speculation, which explains my interest. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't been holding my breath, but if they're deriving any satisfaction from having asked me to explain policy, they're welcome to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think in that context, the speculation he was referring to was the part about the NY times and the Nazi propaganda - the last paragraph of my comment before that reply. Ihateediting (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey ! Sorry for the late reply. I was trying to find the thing I had mentioned. I have made a stupid mistake in this case - I confused NY Times with NY Post !!
 * There was something that was being said at that time about NYT similar to what I had mentioned, and around the same time, there was an actual coronavirus mess-up by NYP about India, which they later acknowledged and apologized for.
 * I mixed the two in my head lol and thought it was the NYT thing that was proved ! It was actually the NYP thing that was proved.
 * Sorry about that ! Ihateediting (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictures of numerous funeral pyres were commonplace during the delta wave of Covid in India; if you have evidence that anyone faked those pictures, I'd still be quite curious to see it, particularly given your comments about supposed bias above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the New York Post article:
 * https://fullfact.org/health/gas-leak-not-covid-19/
 * A few others - not directly linked to our discussion but basically the same play with different actors !
 * https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fake-alert-these-photos-have-nothing-to-do-with-coronavirus-in-italy/articleshow/74793151.cms
 * https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fake-alert-2019-photo-showing-large-crowd-passed-off-as-2021-kumbh-mela-amid-second-wave-of-covid/articleshow/82044569.cms
 * The last one was by Zainab Sikander, an anchor, political analyst, writer and senior journalist with The Print. Ihateediting (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have evidence that some people shared unrelated pictures claiming them to be ones of Covid; not that the pictures of the impacts of Covid were fake, and certainly not that the pictures of Covid shared by mainstream news outlets were fake. If you're getting into random twitter figures sharing unverified images, we're well beyond the scope of an appropriate Wikipedia conversation, so I think we're done here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I mentioned that the last two links ("some people shared unrelated pictures....") were NOT linked to our discussion.
 * Secondly, the first link was about the New York post and the error they made, which I had also mentioned in my earlier explanation.
 * And I thought I was abundantly clear in my earlier explanation and apology about making a mistake confusing between the NYT and NYP and that the information I had heard about NYT was only something I heard, not something that was published or true.
 * If you still want proof of something that I have already acknowledged was hearsay and not published information, then I have none to give.
 * So yes. We are done here. Ihateediting (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A skillful photographer need not really ask crematorium workers to "light pyres in a way that they burned higher and denser" for aesthetics. If true, they should be sacked for lacking competency in their trade than for unethical conduct! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol ! That is exactly what I would do !! If you can't perform your ONLY job, then what good are you ?!! Ihateediting (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but some proof would be quite nice. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but some proof would be quite nice. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
 * A brief guide for administrators may be found at Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
 * Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
 * Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
 * Discuss this at: 

Deletion review for Hurricane Polo (2014)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hurricane Polo (2014). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.246.5 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4
Hello, Vanamonde93,

I hope you are doing well this week. I think there is some technical issue with this closure but I'm not sure how to adjust the templates to ensure that the entire discussion is archived. Right now, it looks like half of the deletion discussion occurred after you closed this AFD. Just thought I'd give you a head's up. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. It was a script-assisted closure, so I don't know why it broke, but moving the reflist-talk template seems to have fixed it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of India: The Modi Question
Hello! Your submission of India: The Modi Question at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
I know, but I figured you'd take care of it. That article got really interesting, didn't it--did someone tweet something? Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks...I really don't know why the flurry of recent attention, but there's been a gradual buildup of cherry-picked content and OR over time, so the dam was bound to burst at some point. I've had it on my watchlist for a decade, but absent a large amount of dedicated time and more patience than I possess, trying to fix it single-handed is a fool's errand. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Ha, User:Muboshgu is an all-American, loves baseball, so I'm sure he can help here. What's more American than some Reagan worship? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Barf. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Gujarat riots
Is the word "Conspires" more appropriate than BBC "examines"? Because the Supreme Court has declared the Allegations as "Baseless".
 * "Conspires" is not appropriate either. Our content needs to be supported by reliable sources, which say nothing about conspiracies or intrigues. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Examines" is not an appropriate term either since The Supreme Court as given in that article has declared the allegations as "Baseless", the Apex court and SIT team have, according to the article proved the PM's no role in the riots. Thus BBC is "Conspiring" against the Democratically elected Indian Government. What term other than "Conspiring" Would be more appropriate then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.L.TDAE. (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The premise of your question is false. The only descriptions that we may use for the documentary are ones used by reliable sources discussing the documentary. "Examines" and its synonyms are the only appropriate terms at this time. Please read WP:YESPOV and WP:RS before pursuing this dispute further. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Blackmill (musician)
Hello!

This AfD, which you closed as keep (understandable at the time) turned out to be one in a series of articles by CU-blocked UPE spammer. In the pre-relist stage it seemed as if though it could have been soft-deleted, but a PROD had failed, being objected to by Mekalos. Then there was a relist and an IP editor became involved, and under the circumstances of UPE and socking it looks as if that said IP has a connection with either Mekalos and/or the subject of the article. Their arguments were completely bogus, and they were endorsing the same spammy SPS/UGC sourcing practices perpetuated by Mekalos across his articles. There were two legitimate, albeit ill-informed keep !votes, and one legitimate delete !vote.

I made a mistake of trying to delete this article too soon thereby preventing it from being moved to draft, and I feel basically responsible that such a rubbish article should remain in mainspace. It's exactly the same as all the other Mekalos' draftified articles which will be met with G13 in due course, and although it does not contain promotional language, it has no encyclopedic value and only exists to give visibility to an entity that is "eternally under-the-radar" (per an actually reliable source). Do you think that something can be done with respect to the AfD? Sincerely—Alalch E. 12:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything needs to be done about the AfD: the AfD was to judge notability, an UPE generally affects the state of the article as it stands. You can do whatever you need to without the AfD discussion affecting it. If anyone objects to any cleanup you do, a new AfD may be needed. Reopening the old one serves no purpose. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. In light of everything, I don't think that this AfD was able to judge notability to the point where there was a consensus to keep because the subject is notable. Maybe "no consensus"? If not, that's fine. Regards—Alalch E. 17:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no purpose served by revisiting an old AfD. The closure reflected consensus then; revisiting it because a sock participated is a waste of time when I have already told you that it won't be a barrier to future cleanup of UPE. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The guy is most definently notable anyway. The musician has a strong stream presence along with a large social media fan base and he's signed. He's notable.   scope_creep Talk  01:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Gimmetrow
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bjelleklang · Bob the Wikipedian · Leithp · WhisperToMe · 100 inactive admins



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BDD · Bradv · Donald Albury · Maxim · MusikAnimal

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BDD · Bradv · Donald Albury · Maxim

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
 * Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news
 * The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
 * In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
 * Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
 * Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by K. S. Chithra
Hi How goes it? I see you closed a whole bundle of these Afd's. They should really have been relisted, instead of closing them with a generic no-consensus close rationale, which I thought was a bit odd, when your saying yourself that the !votes were very similar. I don't believe that. They are all different. There are only 2 editors in every Afd, one of the creating editor and the other one is a mate, who are putting in a generic argument. However, due the number of articles, lots of folk have not really chance to look at them yet. No doubt, one or two are defintely notable, like the one for example, that had a lot of keep !votes, which is the only one,but most are terrible junk and it should left for the community to decide whether they are worth saving. They are mostly terrible junk. They are rank and the creating editor knows that. Sufficient time should be allocated to allow the community to examine in detail, instead of closing them with generic no-consensus rationale. They will need to be sent to Afd at some point again.  scope_creep Talk  01:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I closed them because there is obviously a need to centralize the discussions and/or have a meta-discussion about criteria for discographies of notable singers. The arguments in those discussions were entirely generic, they weren't attracting participation, and the one similar article that had substantial participation was overwhelmingly a "keep". I closed them with a generic rationale, because the arguments were generic; nothing was specific to the lists in question. I suggest opening a project-space discussion, and then revisiting the AfDs as needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Morning Vanamonde93. There seemed to be a conensus forming, on several of them, which I thought should have been left to run. I'll need to take it to DRV and see what they think. I'll ping you when its opened.  scope_creep Talk  08:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, don't bother. If we're going to waste community time at DRV with the goal of sinking more community time in at AfD, let's just cut out the middleman and relist the discussions. I remain convinced that they are not the best approach to these topics, but when did that ever matter at AfD? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Morning Vanamonde93. That makes sense. Thanks for doing that. Hopefully other folk will come and take a look in the next few days and give a chance for a discussion to form and find a way to perhaps recreate these correctly in the future, under the WP:MOS with correct references that satisfies WP:V and WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC.    scope_creep Talk  09:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Starship Troopers
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 March 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/March 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Redd
Vanamonde, any chance that you'll be able to get back to this? No one has stepped up—I think they figure you'll be back eventually—and it's around three months old. Thanks for whatever you can do, and if you can't come back, should we find another reviewer or just close it? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I can try, but I'm a little swamped right now, and have left several other Wikipedia things half-done that I need to get back to first. So I can't make promises, but if I find I have a free moment today I will do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Telugu songs recorded by K. S. Chithra
Hi Vanamonde93, it looks like you missed Articles for deletion/List of Telugu songs recorded by K. S. Chithra when relisting the AfDs in this group that were closed as NC. Are you able to relist this one please? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Gerd Müller
Hi, why is this page so short and not detailed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_M%C3%BCller. 5.91.27.87 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case the only real answer is that nobody has bothered to write a longer and more detailed version. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm intervening in your discussion. If someone wants to help me, I could take care of it; I can't do it completely on my own. JackkBrown (Talk) 21:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what exactly would you like me to do here? If you want assistance writing about Ger Muller, I'm afraid I don't have the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant if I could get some help, on inserting sources; the rest I am capable of doing. JackkBrown (Talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEHOW tells you how to format sources; if you need help finding sources, however, I suggest asking the football Wikiproject. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! JackkBrown (Talk) 22:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for India: The Modi Question
-- RoySmith (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Mail Regarding Recent SPI
Upon my own further investigation, there seems to be even more overlap than I previously thought--Nettless and user in question both heavily editing James Madison, and Greencows and this user both editing Cecil Rhodes in a similar manner in addition to information included in the original email. --Hobomok (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * A lot of socks were CU-blocked, so if there are others they weren't caught be the CU and would need to be connected behaviorally. If you have evidence of such, I encourage you to submit it at SPI. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Theodora Kroeber, performed in collaboration, about a "writer, psychologist, and anthropologist. Referred to sometimes as the wife of well-known anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Theodora built her own reputation as an author after starting to write in her fifties."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vanamonde, great to see Kroeber on the front page at last! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks both! I really enjoyed writing this with the indomitable, so it's my pleasure. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said to Gerda earlier, you did the heavy lifting Vanamonde, I just tried to give her dimension and context within her era. It was a fun collaboration, at any rate. Mayhaps we'll do a repeat in the future. SusunW (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're too kind; you did the work I struggle with :) I'd love to do another someday. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is why we made a good team. I struggle with the part you did. My brain always wants to understand what made someone do what they did. Context is everything for me and people have to be more than one-dimensional. (My dad's nickname for me as a kid, unsurpringly, was "Why".) SusunW (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg The Wordsmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fuhghettaboutit · Spinningspark (deceased)



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
 * Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
 * A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news
 * The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
 * The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
 * A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
 * Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
 * The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
 * Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
 * 🇺🇸 TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
 * Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna,  Thebiguglyalien,  Sammi Brie,  Trainsandotherthings,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, 🇮🇩 Juxlos,  Unexpectedlydian,  SounderBruce, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack,  BennyOnTheLoose and  PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! 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) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Parul Mishra
Hi,

Recently you have deleted Parul Mishra Wikipedia page. I like to highlight few things:

1. NMusic #1 is meeting along with GNG. Please find the below reliable independent reference which show significant coverage.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/parul-mishra-the-folk-music-of-india-should-not-lose-its-relevance/articleshow/72866428.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/padma-vibhushan-pt-birju-maharaj-is-impressed-with-singer-parul-mishras-new-album/articleshow/72934239.cms

2. NMusic #10: Had sung in movies like Ada... A way of life, Hum bhi akele Tum bhi akele, Thalaivii, and few web series like Aspirants, Flames. All these movies and web series are notable and have Wikipedia articles and their music are on renowned music label. Besides she has been a part of few reality show like sa re ga ma pa 2012 and MTV Rock on which are again notable and have their Wikipedia page too.

3. NMusic 8#: Awarded with Naushaad Sangeet Samman award presented by Govt of UP. Renowned and world famous artistes like Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, Kalyanji- Anandji, Khayyam, Pt Shiv Kumar sharma, Hema Malini, Rekha Bhardwaj, Sonu Nigam, Talat Aziz etc have been awarded with this prestigious award, all being notable and have Wikipedia have their pages According to few editors only music awards like Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammys award are notable, so if that the case then India and many more country don't have any notable music awards.. I like to bring it to your attention that the names mentioned should be treated as an example and not as a final list of music award across global.

4. A Google search of the Subject : Parul Mishra, shows significant search results. And the subject have been listed on IMDb, Spotify, apple Music, JioSaavn, wynk.

5. As an author I have put a hell lot of efforts on this Wikipedia article. Have done lots of research on the subject and put lots of effort and lots of times, just because of my love towards Wikipedia. But if this page got deleted, my effort and times all will go in vain which is really disappointed for a editor who believes in expanding the Wikipedia with good articles.

So I kindly request you to please restore the page and I take the sole responsibility of improving the article with time to time basic.

Thanks for understanding. Risu43 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. You presented all these arguments at the deletion discussion, but Consensus in that discussion was clearly against keeping the article. I can't overturn that just because you put effort into it, though I recognize you may be feeling disappointment. I would suggest you find other things to work on, and to keep an eye out for more sources in the meantime. With a young artiste, it's not unlikely that better sources will emerge, which you can use to build a better article. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to request you to relist it again for the final discussion. I will accept whatever will be the outcome. Risu43 (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've relisted, but I wouldn't hold out much hope. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSEDITORIAL
Hi, can you please clarify here Talk:Afghanistan–India relations whether WP:RSEDITORIAL's "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." means the authors/editors of the oped itself. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying to involve me in that discussion, Gotitbro? I've never participated on that page that I can remember, and I haven't the time to dig into the sources in detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just wanted a basic policy clarification from an uninvolved admin. I had no intention to pester you (thought you had not been pinged correctly). Gotitbro (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did get the ping, but it's too involved a discussion for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The bbc documentary
i checked the source till the end and it doesn't say “muslim minority was blamed in the riots” i think it should be removed according to WP:V RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which source did you check? The Washington Post says "The killings were blamed on Muslim perpetrators, and Hindu mobs retaliated by rampaging through Muslim communities." It's not really controversial; most sources giving an overview of the 2002 riots will say this; they just don't also discuss the documentary, and so are not used. Also; this should be discussed on the article talk page if you have further concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * this one RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * this source is inline cited in the text and doesn't have text you mentioned. please mention the source you are talking about. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you perhaps not have full access to that source? It's in there, plain as can be. At the end of the 11th paragraph, which begins "In the hour-long first segment, the BBC focused on the Indian leader’s early career"... Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the guidance, yes i don't have access and looked through the archive and found the lines. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of articles on British ambassadors
Worried by your willingness to delete such articles. In theory, I agree that an ambassador can be non-notable, if there is genuinely no significant coverage anywhere to be found, but almost always there is. We seem to have a small clack of deletionists who are able to agree with each other in this area, but not one of them stops to improve the articles. "Consensus" seems to me to be meaningless if it is just a head-count of people with negative views on the notability of ambassadors in general. Moonraker (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't determined by a head count, but by strength of argument. If you feel ambassadors are inherently notable, that's a proposal you should take to VPP or WT:N. The arguments you've presented that I recall had to do with GNG, and those arguments were convincingly rebutted. I couldn't close the AfDs otherwise even if I wanted to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, I do not agree that anything I have said was "convincingly" rebutted. Do you have a diff? There are deletionists at work who seem to be pushing a kind of Social Justice Warrior agenda here, for some reason targetting mainly British ambassadors.  Thanks to their international duties, I do think there is a better case for ambassadors to be treated as inherently notable than (say) members of national parliaments. That is not where we are, but it is absurd to allow deletionists to argue that being an ambassador is a reason for deletion. I am glad you say consensus is not determined by a head-count, but by argument. But I am seeing a lot of head counting and almost nothing said by people closing Afds about what is the strength of any argument.
 * I really think we should require the editor closing an Afd to give reasons for deciding it one way or another, rather than "The consensus was..." Moonraker (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that being an ambassador is a reason for deletion; they're arguing that being an ambassador isn't in and of itself a reason to keep. If you're seeing an SJW agenda here, I suggest you either take it to AN/ANI, or stop complaining about it. If you feel ambassadors are inherently notable, then propose that at VPP. Otherwise, WP:SIGCOV is the standard we use, and if the provided sources are shown to be database entries or passing mentions, then those sources are held not to be sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Vanamonde. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

TFA again
Thank you today for Starship Troopers, introduced (in 2017): "This article is about a hugely popular, hugely influential, and hugely controversial science fiction novel from 1959. It has been through a GA review, and has also had its reception section looked over by Mike Christie, who knows what's what with science-fiction. Since then I've been over the prose again, and have added more views from commentators to the article. Between the large number of sci-fi authors and scholars, I believe I have covered every significant theme among reliable sources."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring
Hi! I was curious if you'd be interested in helping me with my first FAC nom. I'm looking to promote the article Rafael Quispe and figured that your proficiency in recent political history and previous experience with Latin American biographies would make you best-suited to assist. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking; this would indeed be something I'd be interested in. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time right now; I have far too many RL commitments, and what little time I have for Wikipedia needs to be spent on things I've already committed to. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, no worries! I'll see about exploring other options. Any recommendations on who you'd think would be interested in this sort of project? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)