Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

[edit]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding duplicate page creation

[edit]

Hi Vanamonde,

Hope you are doing good. You attention and help are required about looking at the matter on creation of a duplicate page. Yesterday, I have created a page named Satya Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, which is about the 71st Pontiff of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Kanchipuram, India. To be precise, this page was created at 18:48 pm, 30 April 2025. Another duplicate page with references copied as it is from the original page got created around 19:11 pm under the name Sathya Chandrashekarendra Saraswati. The contents of this original page created by me were removed and a redirect link was put instead. As far as I know, we are not supposed to create duplicate pages in Wikipedia. I have undone the change done by that editor to Satya Chandrashekarendra Saraswati and restored the contents back. Can you help me with merging the two pages and keep some page protection to the original article? Thank you. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate pages should not exist, but in this case it would appear they were created independently at around the same time: I don't see evidence that one copied the other. The second title has now been redirected, so I don't believe there is anything I need to do here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 May 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 03:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Benison: Seen, but I will need to look into a few things before I reply: feel free to nudge me if you don't hear from me in a few days. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAR Review

[edit]

I have nominated J.K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

added Rusalkii
readded NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling

[edit]

Taking this here.

I'll be honest, I feel very discouraged by Wikipedia's handling of trans issues and am unsure whether anything I say or do here will have any positive impact. The Rowling article should not be a featured article, I do think that quite sincerely, but as far as making it better... it's hard to work up the will to spend hours reading through academic material about bigotry just to know that it will only lead to 3 months of arguments followed by a "no consensus" status quo. It's so demoralizing. Simonm223 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to trans issues in general - it's not an area I work in, I am working on Rowling's page because of my interest in literature. I think there's good reasons why that page is as heavily qualified as it is - Rowling has tended to traffic in innuendo and implication, sources take a while to catch up to her, UK libel laws are stringent, and most critically we follow the sources, rather than lead them. If editors with no previous involvement arrive on the talk page to complain that we are perpetrating an injustice by excluding a category unsupported by the sources, it will get shut out. But if you look in the archives there you will find there's a lot of people who have made a genuine effort to represent the best sources on the subject: and when I, or a few others, have resisted a change it's typically because we cannot relax our standards of sourcing for a matter editors feel passionate about. Editors who are significant contributors to the page have expended effort on contentious disputes, and it has led to changes, both favorable to Rowling and unfavorable. As such if you are invested in the page, and have the ability to work to synthesize some complex material - and I believe from seeing you around that you do - I encourage you to chip in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that it seems the standards for sourcing that Rowling is anti-trans seems to be somewhere equivalent to WP:MEDRS. The transphobia topic area contains a lot of WP:CPUSH this is not the first time, in this topic area, I have been told peer reviewed articles from reputable journals are not good enough because of the sub-type of peer reviewed article. And the thing is that I work a lot with political extremism. With an academic background in sociology and philosophy it is something I have put a lot of attention to. If I'm working on a page about a neo-nazi or a klansman or an anarchist bomber or something like that and I want to say "this person is a neo-nazi" and I have sources that confirm "this person is a neo-nazi" then, with the small exception of Ukranian neo-nazis, that's kind of that. The edits go in and the article accurately identifies the political extremist. But when it's transphobes it seems like no source is ever good enough, like there are never enough, and, when in doubt, the UK press can be used to rebut academia with impunity. Regardless, I've followed your request and brought in several new sources that I don't believe are currently used by the article. They are starkly clear. Several of them just call Rowling a TERF or a Transphobe in unvarnished and explict language. Others situate her within transphobic movements. I fully expect, if no excuse can be found why these peer-reviewed articles are not sufficient, that I will be told they should be put on some other page while the core article will maintain the more favorable POV of the figure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort, and I will do my best to engage. But also, I want to point out that the neo-Nazi comparison is a bad one specifically because it is the exception, not the rule. Educated classes in the Anglosphere - that we overwhelmingly draw our sources from - are unanimous in their identification and rejection of Nazi ideology in a way that's different from almost any other form of hate. That's perhaps justifiable, but it means that for most contentious figures we're better served by detailing what they have said and done rather than arguing over labels. Just my two cents. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for FAC help

[edit]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well and having a good day so far. Apologies for the random message. I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC on Satsu (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), who is a character from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I reached out to you because you helped with my past FAC on a separate fictional character, and I would like to get more opinions on the article and FAC as there is an oppose. Again, I completely understand if you would prefer not to. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for the ask. Unfortunately I'm quite swamped in RL, and already behind on things on-wiki that I've undertaken to do - so this is a bad time. I am also unfamiliar with Buffy the Vampire slayer, whereas I have at least a passing familiarity with Star Trek sourcing. Without having analyzed the sources myself, and noting that I may have come to a different conclusion if I did, I will say that an oppose on balance issues without sources being provided does not strike me as actionable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I completely understand. I hope that everything goes well both RL and on-wiki, and I wish you the best of luck with both. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forum of Irish Postgraduate Medical Training Bodies

[edit]

I noticed you closed as redirect but I believe this is a delete consensus. I don't believe my delete vote can be interpreted as not opposed to redirect. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: Your !vote does not include specific opposition to a redirect: notability is not relevant to whether a redirect exists. That said, upon re-reading, the OP did post reasoned objections to a redirect, so I have amended my closure. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cass review and peer review

[edit]

I see you asked about a source for whether the Cass Review is peer reviewed. Page 10 of that source says "Cass Review (2022)". But the Cass Review was completed and published in 2024, which as the RAND document says "the final Cass Review (2024)—a report commissioned by the UK National Health Service to make policy recommendations for services provided to TGE youth in that system—was released while this report was in preparation." So what are they referring to with the 2022 document? They are referring to the Interim Report that was published in 2022. At that point, the Cass Review had commissioned two systematic reviews by NICE, but as the interim report says "the available evidence was not strong enough to form the basis of a policy position." So they weren't used. The interim report only made some limited recommendations, one of which led to GIDS closing. So Cass commissioned seven other systematic reviews from the team at York. These are all peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood. The document that was finally written by Cass in 2024 and is properly called The Final Report of the Cass Review. The Cass Review itself is a four year long "Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People" that involved commissioning research, meeting "1000 individuals and organisations" and publishing these two reports.

The only writers claiming the Cass Review was not peer reviewed are blogger activists. Reliable sources do not do that. The Transgender health care misinformation article said: "The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England—said that there was a lack of evidence to support trans healthcare for children." The "lack of evidence" is the conclusion of those peer reviewed systematic reviews in the Archives of Disease in Childhood that form the core of the Cass Review's evidence base. -- Colin°Talk 14:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may surprise you to know I'm well aware of the substance of the report - I asked for specifics on what the RAND source was being cited for, to understand what impact if any it ought to have had on the discussions it was cited in - not to inform my personal views of the underlying dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this discussion I have just opened on the topic. It was being cited for the claim The Cass Review was a non-peer-reviewed, independent service review. I moved the reference to the section on the interim report along with the citation, but have been reverted. Void if removed (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few more questions regarding this discussion

[edit]

Hi, thanks for weighing in there. I agree that it can be perfectly acceptable for editors to BOLDly merge content from deleted or about-to-be-deleted subjects, and that this is normally something to be resolved through content discussion. However I was under the impression that doing such merges during an AfD (and without attribution), and especially without notifying the AfD or any participants, was frowned upon? I thought potentially controversial merges were supposed to go through more proper channels, and surely merging a whole biography of a subject about to be deleted into a page where they are trivially mentioned would be controversial...

The broader issue is that this has seemingly become a new tactic for indiscriminately shoehorning in irrelevant biographical material from deleted biographies into pages where, due to the lack of any secondary sourcing, the subject only warranted a mention in a list. The fact that this has led to edit-warring without even attempting to bring about merge proposals is IMO disruptive and I really don't think it's casting aspersions to state my opinion that this is intended to get around AfD results. AFAICT @LibStar and @Let'srun haven't opposed examples like here where a very brief mention of relevant other pages is made in a footnote, similar to what would have been mentioned in a NAVPAGE if that exact implementation of the proposal hasn't been encountering strong resistance (for precisely the reason that it's a problem now: editors anticipated NAVPAGES turning into pseudostubs of miscellaneous details in contravention of an AfD result and of UNDUE). I initially supported NAVPAGES for sportspeople before I think Voorts or GreenLipstickLesbian brought up that problem.

Then there is the added issue of one of the editors doing these copy-pastes having just agreed to a self-imposed restriction on commenting on AfDs for certain types of Olympians in order to avoid a proposed sportsperson AfD TBAN at ANI for their behavior at these AfDs. It all seems like part of the same longstanding problem rather than individual minor issues. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a decades-long feud on Wikipedia about the notability of athletes, of which this is the latest chapter. I don't doubt that some of the related behavior is disruptive, such as that edit-war. But that needs to be handled as the behavioral issue it is, and lacking a framework for unilateral admin action, such as we have within CTOPs, it needs to be handled at ANI. Admins who close AfDs can enforce that closure but only under very limited circumstances - I could, for instance, block someone repeatedly reverting an AfD closure - but the mergers we're looking at are enough of a gray area that no unilateral action is possible. I couldn't even necessarily do something about someone recreating an article deleted at AfD, so long as they did enough to avoid CSD#G4. I understand that that's frustrating, but such is the wiki way sometimes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vanamonde. I wasn't actually trying to get you or Asilvering to perform any admin action; I only wanted feedback on whether the stealth-merge of entire deleted biographies into marginally-related pages and the surrounding behavior was improper. I thought I had seen some ANIs where merges during an AfD were considered disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot depends on the specifics. There isn't a blanket rule against merging during or after an AfD - there are circumstances in which that is perfectly valid. And there's circumstances in which it isn't. I'm not going to say these merges are fine, but both the content and behavior here needs to be handled on the specifics, rather than from first principles. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian military history case opened

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khoa41860

[edit]

You recently blocked Khoa41860 for socking we have a confirmed IP sock (by their own admission) of them using 2600:1700:b0a1:5f0:8f0:53a2:2b1c:b25a at Talk:2025 Stanley Cup playoffs. Deadman137 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=1292781300"