User talk:Vanderwaalforces: Difference between revisions

Line 85: Line 85:

: 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 :). [[User:Rusalkii|Rusalkii]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces#top|talk]]) 20:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

:Vanderwaal, you [[WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_4#Storming|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. [[User:Jay| Jay]][[User talk:Jay| 💬]] 02:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

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.

Hello. I would really appreciate your advice in this case. Sandipta Sen – looking at the username of the person who created this article back in 2015, it seems to be the artist herself. So, it clearly becomes a case of WP:YOURSELF. But, as of 2025, the article is well notable. According to me, now, it shouldn’t be a matter of concern that who has created the article, since it is notable. (Also, the creator has made no further edits to it since it’s creation in 2015). So….will it be okay to remove the close connection template from the page?

Thanks – BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there BhikhariInformer, the article have had over 200 revisions (not by the creator who is likely the subject of the article) since 2015. The essence of a close connection template is to make sure the article is cleaned up (assuming the creator wrote it promotionally) to comply with NPOV. The article currently isn’t promotional, and the 2015 close connection template is definitely stale by now, hence, it can be removed. There’s already a {{connected contributor}} template in the talk page and that’s fine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for you kind help and advice. – BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Owodo is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catjacket — Catjacket (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Catjacket I hope you enjoy reading the article and enjoy reviewing it too, especially since it’s your first. As of the second GAN every other thing was perfectly okay except the Ero source which I removed before renominating it. Enjoy your review. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim–Muslim ticket has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

[1] Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepharoah17 This should be fixed by the next time it runs. Thanks for the headsup. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Independence Day (Nigeria) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reverosie — Reverosie (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Every 15 minutes isn’t a bad idea and very doable, actually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply