User talk:Vanamonde93

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Deletion of Wikientry for John Simon South African Composer

[edit]

Dear Vanamonde93, Thank you for your response regarding the deletion of my Wiki entry on 11.9.25. My apologies for having taken so long to reply: I have been unwell. I agree entirely with your comments regarding copious unreferenced additions. However, I should mention that most earlier entries were relatively well referenced. You kindly suggested that you would consider reinstating a modified entry if I could provide you with a media article regarding my work. Such an article appeared shortly before a Cape Philharmonic Orchestra performance of my ‘Fugal Fantasia for harp, strings and tam-tam’. Its title was ‘Composer John Simon and CPO premiere 19.10.24 WeekendSpecial'. I think it is a pretty thorough article, meant to reach many arts people in South Africa’s Western Cape. It also has the goodness to make a brief reference to my desire for reconciliation in South Africa. I hope you will react positively to the idea of a recreated, well-referenced Wiki article. Thank you for your time and help, which are appreciated. Yours sincerely, John Simon (Rossini2025) Rossini2025 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that. Without access to the source there isn't much I can do. I can look into obtaining such, but only when I have a moment to spare, ie not right now. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 Thank you for your help.Best wishes. Rossini 2025 Rossini2025 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vanamonde93,
I hope you will follow up on the media article, which I supplied details of on 18 September, so that my wiki entry can be restored. Thank you for your help. Rossini 2025 Rossini2025 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have yet to find the time to do this. But please note, all I promised to do was attempt to get access to the source. There is no guarantee that I will be able to; or that if I do, it will prove sufficient for an article. I want to be upfront about that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

[edit]

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

  • On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

[edit]
This time "not merely negative".
Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.
Unexpected news!
Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.
Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.
And other recent publications.
When to walk away.
Rest in peace.
Celebrities, deaths and software.
All invited!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Hi, I have a couple of questions

  1. Could you clarify what you meant by exercising less care with respect to content that serves their POV vs content that does not? Could you provide a few examples of edits that led you to arrive to this conclusion? This is not an idle question as I want to understand the expectation from the editors in this area and make sure this doesn't happen again.
  2. You wrote that I would be willing to consider the need for a BER on Smallangryplanet as well - there are hints in this evidence that that might be necessary - but their behavior is not a large part of the evidence seen here, and so I would want a separate filing [1]. I'm not sure I want to do this - it depends on the answer to the first question - but in case I do, can you confirm that it falls under WP:BANEX or grant an exception? Alaexis¿question? 09:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of specific examples, because in my experience any given example can be argued over till the cows come home. Speaking in generalities, when we're writing content, but contentious content in particular, we have an obligation to identify the best source, and to summarize it as honestly and completely as possible. That means applying a consistent standard in selecting sources, in verifying the content therein, and in summarizing that completely. Looking at the standards you were applying when removing material vs adding material, and also at your comments at RSP, it was evident you were not applying a consistent standard. That conclusion was based on the totality of your edits, and the other admins agreed at least in part. I encourage you to reflect on that moving forward.
Reporting a different editor to AE is not an automatic exception to the ban (though your question above, is) and I don't feel like making such a report is the best way for you to move on from this, so I don't want to grant an exception at this time. Smallangryplanet received an informal warning, and any other editor is still able to bring a report to AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, it does makes it clearer.
I think it's a bit unfair though. It's not just about SmallAngryPlanet, there were other editors active in the area whose behaviour didn't satisfy the standards you've described above. I'd like to see them consistently applied to all editors. Alaexis¿question? 07:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As would we all. But for the moment, you need to leave that enforcement to other people. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem that this enforcement has been missing so far, with plenty of aspersions-casting and removals of sourced info without good reason. My concern is that the same behaviour is going to continue. Alaexis¿question? 12:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But further discussion of that is beyond the scope of what is allowed by WP:BANEX. Your options are to file an immediate appeal - unlikely to be granted, given that the sanction was just placed - or return to regular editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tonal whiplash

[edit]

QuietHere has asked for a deletion review of Tonal whiplash. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hello @Vanamonde93: ! I saw that you changed protection level for several articles. Can you please change protection level of National Resistance Front of Afghanistan from extended-confirmed protected to semi-protected. The article was made extended-protected on 20 August 2021 during the end of the Afghan war when there was massive disruptive edits on all sides. Since then, many Afghan-related articles, the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Fall of Kabul (2021), even the Taliban article itself were moved to semi-protected. However, this one was not moved despite it being far less-edited than those other articles. I request to move this to semi-protected status. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing in principle. I am technically able to do this unilaterally, as the protection is many years old, but courtesy ping to @Anarchyte: to see if they have any objections. I must ask: you seem very familiar with page protections for someone who registered an account 20 hours ago: is this your first account? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I raise no objections. Thank you for the ping. Anarchyte (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will reduce protection, because it appears to be the reasonable thing to do here. I will do my best to keep an eye on the page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:, sorry for the late reply. No I did have another account but I forgot its password so I made another one. Thanks for reducing protection for this one, can you reduce protection for the Republican insurgency in Afghanistan due to the same reason I provided above? Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What was your previous account, Wazir Pakhteen? Creating a new one is fine if you have lost your password, but it's not acceptable to evade a block or ban this way, and if your previous account was under sanctions it's much better for you if you admit to that sooner rather than later. I have lowered protection on the page you mention, because that's a reasonable thing to do regardless. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The account was Wazirpashteen. It was not under sanctions or anything not blocked as such sir. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klavdiya Gadyuchkina

[edit]

Maybe you could share your point of view here. MattSucci (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MattSucci, as I've said before, I don't have general expertise on the supercentenarian question, and I avoid seeking those AfDs out. If I come across them at the bottom of the AfD queue I may participate as I usually do. Please also be mindful about canvassing opinions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 October 2025

[edit]
And the "Global Resource Distribution Committee" emerges.
Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot.
Who was bumped and why?
...while Musk prepares to launch "Grokipedia".
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Don't get too excited before you read this.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn - was informed it would be canvassing.

Seeking a mentor for a potential Featured Article Candidacy

[edit]

Hi Vanamonde93, I hope you're doing well! I'm reaching out because I'm trying to promote 2024 United States drone sightings to Featured Article status and I saw your name on the FAC mentors list. Your interest in recent political history seems to somewhat relate to this topic. I've started a peer review here and would love your input if you have some time. I would also appreciate any guidance you might have in navigating the FAC process more generally. Thanks for considering! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking. I'm afraid I'm far too strapped for time right now: in fact this is the nudge I need to take my name off that list. Best of luck with the nomination. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Thanks for letting me know. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hello Vanamonde, How do i cross out or strike-through words/articles if you are busy? Let me know. ChainHunt (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax for striking through text is <s>struck through text</s>. Using Discussion tools will let you insert the syntax with a click. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]
🌻 Just wanted to say thank you! (for starting the rfc).

EM (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Vanamonde93. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]