User talk:Vanderwaalforces
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is Vanderwaalforces's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 | Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words. |
 | Scam Watch
Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam. |
VWFBot RfD task(s) bug report
[edit]Hi, not sure if there's a better place to put this, but it looks like (1) both VWFbot and DumbBot are taking turns creating RfD log pages, which isn't exactly a problem but is a little strange, and (2) VWFBot seems to not be cleaning up completed RfD pages any more. If you already know about this feel free to ignore me :) Rusalkii (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rusalkii Hi there, thanks for the observations. DumbBot actually went inactive and the operator mentioned not being able to fix it for now, so I took over one of its tasks (of creating RfD log pages and transcluding them), it looks like DumbBot has started editing again.
- For the second, VWF bot always do not get a chance to remove them before editors manually remove them, I’ve told some editors already that there’s a bot that would remove the closed logs, but it looks like they’ve forgotten. Is there a way to emphasise that again? The bot runs every 30 minutes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Taging people from the RfD talk page seems like a reasonable step here. Perhaps you could bump the run time up to every 15 minutes or so? I'm unsure how costly the runs are, if this is difficult or uses a lot of compute it probably isn't worth it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Every 15 minutes isn’t a bad idea and very doable, actually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Rusalkii (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Every 15 minutes isn’t a bad idea and very doable, actually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Taging people from the RfD talk page seems like a reasonable step here. Perhaps you could bump the run time up to every 15 minutes or so? I'm unsure how costly the runs are, if this is difficult or uses a lot of compute it probably isn't worth it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
BAGBot: Your bot request VWF bot 3
[edit]Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VWF bot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Hi there, thanks for helping clear the RfD backlog. Can you please explain why this close of "no consensus" defaulted to a functional outcome of "keep" which nobody argued for rather than "disambiguate" which is how I would typically see the RfD regular admins handle this type of "no consensus" close? Regards, Left guide (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Left guide I read it as a no consensus (before Jay's comment), but if at RfD and in a case like this, it is actually better to disambiguate, I think it is very reasonable. I am also thrilled to see that Jay commented while I was doing the close, so I definitely missed that comment. Would you be able to do the "disambiguate" close if I revert myself? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for being amenable. I actually wanted to offer you the option of modifying the close, perhaps something like "no consensus, which functionally defaults to the non-delete option of disambiguate". There's already a disambiguation draft prepared at the redirect page, so feel free to remove the redirect coding and it should appear, or I can do it if you're unsure how. I also shared a similar concern with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#HODL, where I see very minimal support for keeping, and a sizable volume and strength of arguments for deleting HODL, so I think this overall decision is better left to an admin who has a hand over the delete button. Can you please consider vacating the HODL close? Regards, Left guide (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Left guide Nice. Please check if there’s something I missed per the former. For the latter, I reverted myself as of now; I think you’re right to an extent that I probably chose NC because I do not have the delete bit, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- ABCDEF looks good to go from a cursory glance, thanks. And yeah I know what you mean, WP:RELISTBIAS addresses some of this. I often ask myself, "what would I do if I was an admin?", and that helps me to avoid getting in the admins' way as a NAC. Keep up all the good work. Left guide (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- p.s. WP:BARTENDER may be a good read for closing discussions which have little or no support for keeping. Left guide (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Right! RELISTBIAS looks interesting, I’d give it better read. Thanks for also mentioning BARTENDER. Happy editing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Vanderwaal, you reverted your HODL close, but did not revert the bot's removal of the page log from the main RfD page. I have done it for now. Jay 💬 03:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Left guide Nice. Please check if there’s something I missed per the former. For the latter, I reverted myself as of now; I think you’re right to an extent that I probably chose NC because I do not have the delete bit, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for being amenable. I actually wanted to offer you the option of modifying the close, perhaps something like "no consensus, which functionally defaults to the non-delete option of disambiguate". There's already a disambiguation draft prepared at the redirect page, so feel free to remove the redirect coding and it should appear, or I can do it if you're unsure how. I also shared a similar concern with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#HODL, where I see very minimal support for keeping, and a sizable volume and strength of arguments for deleting HODL, so I think this overall decision is better left to an admin who has a hand over the delete button. Can you please consider vacating the HODL close? Regards, Left guide (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wanted to briefly pop in and thank you for closing some of the RfD backlog. Those no-consensus BARTENDER closes are always the hardest, which is why we keep playing closer chicken with them :). Rusalkii (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hehe, thank you too. I think the process at AfD is similar; it’s usually whether a subject passes any notability guideline there. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Vanderwaal, you closed the Storming RfD but retained both the redirect and the disambiguation draft in the page! Can you confirm what the close was - No Consensus Keep or No Consensus Disambiguate? And fix the redirect page. Thanks. Jay 💬 02:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jay I think this one also falls in the same category as ABCDEF above right? Defaulting to disambiguate? Because there’s clearly no consensus to keep. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I came here to comment on the same close. If there's a nontrivial amount of support for the status quo, e.g. keep !votes, then a no consensus close should usually default to the status quo, per WP:NOCON. WP:NCRET/WP:BARTENDER only applies where the status quo is clear not prefer by the vast majority of participants, such that it would be silly to default to it and please no one at all. Now, in this case I think there is in fact enough of a tilt in the direction of disambiguating that your outcome makes sense (3 dabs vs 2 keeps, plus the nom who prefers delete > dab > keep), I'm not challenging it, but I'm a little confused by your read of the policies here and wanted to drop a note in case there was some confusion leftover from the previous discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rusalkii Pardon me if I’m dumb, but I understand that you’re not challenging the close as amended, but I do not understand why you’re confused. I think I’m the confused person here, haha. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Disambiguate" seems to me to be a reasonable outcome in this case, but "no consensus -> therefore, closer must default to disambiguate even when there there's a decent fraction of keep !votes" is not correct. WP:BARTENDER closes are instead "no consensus -> closer defaults to status quo (keep) unless there was no substantive support for keeping the status quo by anyone". So I guess technically I'm challenging the logic behind the "no consensus -> must disambiguate" part of your close, but I don't want to nitpick when the outcome is the same :) Does that make more sense? Rusalkii (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rusalkii Ah, don’t mind me, I understand you now. I think it’s true that my confusion stems from the one Left guide mentioned above. Do you want me to amend the NC part? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, I guess you could if you think it makes sense, but given that the outcome is the same I don't feel strongly about it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware for the future. Rusalkii (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, I guess you could if you think it makes sense, but given that the outcome is the same I don't feel strongly about it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware for the future. Rusalkii (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rusalkii: I suspect Vanderwaalforces may have extrapolated that thought process from my comment here regarding the delete vs. disambiguate debate at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 8#ABCDEF, which was not my intention. Left guide (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rusalkii Ah, don’t mind me, I understand you now. I think it’s true that my confusion stems from the one Left guide mentioned above. Do you want me to amend the NC part? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Disambiguate" seems to me to be a reasonable outcome in this case, but "no consensus -> therefore, closer must default to disambiguate even when there there's a decent fraction of keep !votes" is not correct. WP:BARTENDER closes are instead "no consensus -> closer defaults to status quo (keep) unless there was no substantive support for keeping the status quo by anyone". So I guess technically I'm challenging the logic behind the "no consensus -> must disambiguate" part of your close, but I don't want to nitpick when the outcome is the same :) Does that make more sense? Rusalkii (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rusalkii Pardon me if I’m dumb, but I understand that you’re not challenging the close as amended, but I do not understand why you’re confused. I think I’m the confused person here, haha. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I came here to comment on the same close. If there's a nontrivial amount of support for the status quo, e.g. keep !votes, then a no consensus close should usually default to the status quo, per WP:NOCON. WP:NCRET/WP:BARTENDER only applies where the status quo is clear not prefer by the vast majority of participants, such that it would be silly to default to it and please no one at all. Now, in this case I think there is in fact enough of a tilt in the direction of disambiguating that your outcome makes sense (3 dabs vs 2 keeps, plus the nom who prefers delete > dab > keep), I'm not challenging it, but I'm a little confused by your read of the policies here and wanted to drop a note in case there was some confusion leftover from the previous discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jay I think this one also falls in the same category as ABCDEF above right? Defaulting to disambiguate? Because there’s clearly no consensus to keep. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Your good article nomination of the article Owodo has been placed 
on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catjacket -- Catjacket (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 70
[edit]
Issue 70, July–August 2025
- New collections:
- Times of Malta
- Africa Intelligence
- Intelligence Online
- La Lettre
- Glitz
- Spotlight: Wikimania
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
(This message was sent to User:Vanderwaalforces and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
The redirect Rebecca (disambiguation)/Eureka transponding radar has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20 § Rebecca (disambiguation)/Eureka transponding radar until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter
[edit]Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here. June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Your good article nomination of the article Owodo has 
passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catjacket -- Catjacket (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Catjacket @Kowal2701 @Sohvyan What would I have done without you? Thank you all for collaborating with me on this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Your nomination of Independence Day (Nigeria) has passed
[edit]Your good article nomination of the article Independence Day (Nigeria) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reverosie -- Reverosie (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
DYK for Independence Day (Nigeria)
[edit]
On 1 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Independence Day (Nigeria), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nigeria's independence on 1 October 1960 was marked by the lowering of the Union Jack and the raising of the country's new flag before 40,000 people at the Lagos Race Course? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Independence Day (Nigeria). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Independence Day (Nigeria)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this article. — AjaxSmack 02:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @AjaxSmack You read? Thank you for reading and enjoying it. I’m also happy I’ve been able to work on it with the advice from @UndercoverClassicist!!! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Precious
[edit]Independence of Nigeria
Thank you for quality articles around Nigeria such as Independence Day (Nigeria), National symbols of Nigeria lists of governors and Edo literature, for taking advice, for reaching for higher quality instead of giving up, for "let it always be lots of fun", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2993 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt OMG! Thank you so much Gerda! I’m speechless but thank you for reading those articles, I hope you found them to be interesting! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
- Thank you, and yes, interesting, - I'm always learning. Your case, noticed yesterday, reminded me so much on my quest to have Bach's Easter Oratorio on DYK for the 300th anniversary of the music, and it needed to be GA for that, and the review took time, and my hook suggestions were not liked, so it didn't happen, but I went for FAC on Easter Sunday, - so your nomination made me smile. I plan to review, but am a bit loaded with other work, - patience please. - Often cross with DYK, I write my own, called story. Today's is related to the birthday of a woman, - check it out. The pic - my calendar pic for October - is from the town where I live. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt Nice. Please take your time, as I would definitely be expecting your review. Thank you in advance; patience is indeed key. I see your stories and I love them, the calendar picture is also nice. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, and yes, interesting, - I'm always learning. Your case, noticed yesterday, reminded me so much on my quest to have Bach's Easter Oratorio on DYK for the 300th anniversary of the music, and it needed to be GA for that, and the review took time, and my hook suggestions were not liked, so it didn't happen, but I went for FAC on Easter Sunday, - so your nomination made me smile. I plan to review, but am a bit loaded with other work, - patience please. - Often cross with DYK, I write my own, called story. Today's is related to the birthday of a woman, - check it out. The pic - my calendar pic for October - is from the town where I live. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)