User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2025/03 (March)
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vanderwaalforces. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your GA nomination of Uwa (Ogiso)
The article Uwa (Ogiso) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Uwa (Ogiso) for comments about the article, and Talk:Uwa (Ogiso)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2024 Annual Report
Guild of Copy Editors Annual Report
 Our 2024 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
The article Ehenneden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ehenneden for comments about the article, and Talk:Ehenneden/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind reopening and relisting this? I don't really fault you for the close, but the keep !voters did not address the nomination reason, which was failure of SPORTSCRIT (the requirement that all sportsperson articles actively cite a source of IRS SIGCOV). With only two !votes, neither of them based on policies or guidelines, this would have really benefited from a relist. Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep in mind WP:NEXIST supersedes SPORTCRIT, and regardless NATH can be fulfilled without SPORTCRIT. I don't mind the relist, but I don't agree that the keep rationale didn't address the nomination reason, and I don't agree that the !votes weren't "based on policies or guidelines" – WP:V is a policy which is fulfilled by the article as it stands, while SPORTCRIT (and WP:N in general) is only a guideline. --Habst (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Both of these statements are categorically false. NEXIST does not override the requirement that SIGCOV be verifiable, and SPORTCRIT has a more recent and global consensus anyway. NATH explicitly requires SPORTCRIT, as do all other sport-specific criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concerns but please take this to the AfD, this is the type of conversation we should be having there. In short I think you're using the word "requirement" in a way that doesn't reflect the community consensus on these issues, and NATH can of course be satisfied without checking any other box in the sense that it's a distinct guideline. Regardless, the article meets nearly all of SPORTCRIT except for the fifth prong anyways. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are entirely incorrect. Pinging @OwenX and @GiantSnowman as admins familiar with the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Admins have a wide range of views. As I've said before I have great respect for your contributions and just saying "you are incorrect" isn't a productive way to address me. They should comment in the AfD if they think differently so we can reach a consensus. --Habst (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- GNG is the ultimate here - not any sport-specific guidelines. GiantSnowman 17:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Admins have a wide range of views. As I've said before I have great respect for your contributions and just saying "you are incorrect" isn't a productive way to address me. They should comment in the AfD if they think differently so we can reach a consensus. --Habst (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are entirely incorrect. Pinging @OwenX and @GiantSnowman as admins familiar with the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concerns but please take this to the AfD, this is the type of conversation we should be having there. In short I think you're using the word "requirement" in a way that doesn't reflect the community consensus on these issues, and NATH can of course be satisfied without checking any other box in the sense that it's a distinct guideline. Regardless, the article meets nearly all of SPORTCRIT except for the fifth prong anyways. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Both of these statements are categorically false. NEXIST does not override the requirement that SIGCOV be verifiable, and SPORTCRIT has a more recent and global consensus anyway. NATH explicitly requires SPORTCRIT, as do all other sport-specific criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I just saw that you relisted, thank you so much! JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Please keep up the good work! Maliner (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC) |
- Oh @Maliner thank you so much for the animated star :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Incidents caused by the lack of a modern kingship consensus between Edo and Yoruba people, who once had a united consensus Sohvyan (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
DYK for Uwa (Ogiso)
On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uwa (Ogiso), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that brass casting, which later became a hallmark of Benin art, was first introduced to Igodomigodo during Uwa's reign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uwa (Ogiso). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Uwa (Ogiso)), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
SL93 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Igodo
Hi, just letting you know Ogiso igodo was created and isn’t particularly NPOV. Unfortunately I can’t access a lot of the sources like Eghargevba and Omoregie so can’t do much about it Kowal2701 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Kowal2701 Trust me to have seen it, hehe. Thanks for letting me know by the way. While it does appear to not be pretty NPOV-ish, I will take time to do checking after I finish writing Owodo’s article. I finished gathering sources today, will start drafting and that can take a short or long time depending on my schedule, especially recently. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds great, no rush Kowal2701 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Promotion of List of governors of Delta State
DYK for Ehenneden
On 25 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ehenneden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that cowries were increasingly used during the reign of Ehenneden as currency in Igodomigodo's markets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ehenneden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ehenneden), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cielquiparle (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Your WikiCup submission: Template:Did you know nominations/Uwa (Ogiso)
Hi Vanderwaalforces, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. You recently submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Uwa (Ogiso) for DYK points, but unfortunately it is not eligible for DYK points because it was nominated to DYK as a newly promoted GA. I know this can be disappointing, but Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Did you know? states that only newly created or expanded DYKs are eligible for DYK points. The rules specifically exclude DYK submissions from receiving points if their appearance on DYK is solely because the article was a newly promoted GA. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius pretty strange, but what can I say? Thanks for informing me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Just as I am wondering… why is it so? Is it because the article must have already attracted points to the editor for being a GA, so getting it again for DYK would be like getting 40 points (instead of 35) for a single article? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be correct. In a sense, you would be double dipping on the points. However, you can still claim DYK and GA points for the same article if you created or expanded it, nominated it as a DYK for that reason, then nominated it for GA. In that case, you'd be considered to have put in significant effort to bring the article to DYK. This is not to say that bringing an article to GA is insignificant, either, but in the past, editors often expanded articles several months (or even years) before nominating them for GA with only minor changes. I suppose that is why DYKs can't receive points if they've been improved to GA status; however, this rule predates my time as judge, so I can't say for sure. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius that’s very reasonable, honestly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be correct. In a sense, you would be double dipping on the points. However, you can still claim DYK and GA points for the same article if you created or expanded it, nominated it as a DYK for that reason, then nominated it for GA. In that case, you'd be considered to have put in significant effort to bring the article to DYK. This is not to say that bringing an article to GA is insignificant, either, but in the past, editors often expanded articles several months (or even years) before nominating them for GA with only minor changes. I suppose that is why DYKs can't receive points if they've been improved to GA status; however, this rule predates my time as judge, so I can't say for sure. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
Greetings, Vanderwaalforces. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |