User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/02 (February)

WP:AN notification

An edit you made is under lengthy discussion at WP:AN. Your inputs may be helpful to decipher your intent/rationale. Buffs (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Buffs, I was actually typing a reply when the thread at AN was archived, either way, I appreciate the notification. I had been following that discussion closely, ever since it was first posted at AN/I and then moved to AN. I had no personal stake in that conversation, as I only made a non-admin closure. However, when the community decided to overturn my closure, I respected that. Wikipedia is community-driven and any decision on Wikipedia is based on consensus. It was clear that there was a consensus to overturn my closure, so an Administrator did so. As I said, I thought the decision of the community should prevail, and it did. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

AUB

Hello, Vanderwaalforces! I recently shared a draft replacement article for Atlantic Union Bank on behalf of the bank and as part of my work at Beutler Ink. The current entry is problematic for the reasons I've outlined here. I do not edit the main space directly because of my COI, and I am looking for editors to review and implement the proposed draft appropriately.

I've disclosed my COI on the article's Talk page and my profile page. Since you reviewed another company draft of mine not too long ago (Guardant Health), I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the draft. Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason Hi there. I have carefully compared your version and the current version of the article, and I have some questions about why your version omits the fact that this bank was "founded as First Market Bank, FSB on November 4, 1997". Is this information inaccurate or irrelevant?

Also, I noticed that your version contains some statements that sound biased or exaggerated, such as "In 2019, the bank created a division focused on financing for commercial equipment". These statements need to be revised or removed to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid puffery or weasel words. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an initial look. Atlantic Union Bank was not "founded as First Market Bank, FSB on November 4, 1997", as the article suggests. It is a little confusing, but AUB (formerly Union Bank & Trust) acquired First Market Bank. It is inaccurate to say AUB was founded as First Market Bank. The text "In 2019, the bank created a division focused on financing for commercial equipment", I saw this as a basic operational detail based on Richmond Times-Dispatch, which says:

• "Richmond-based Atlantic Union Bank has created a division to focus on financing for commercial equipment. The bank said its Atlantic Union Equipment Finance division will provide solutions to commercial and corporate customers, including financing for assets such as boats, tractors, trailers, buses, and construction, manufacturing and medical equipment."

I think the claim is neutrally worded, but I am certainly open to text changes or removal if you prefer. I am happy to address any other concerns here or on the article's Talk page.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason This will require a further look but that's not something I can do now. Maybe later... or someone else could take a look. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has reviewed the draft. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason Oh, that is great then! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

 Requesting immediate archiving...

	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: The Night Watch
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Benin Altar Tusk

On 30 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Benin Altar Tusk, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nigeria seeks the return of the Benin Altar Tusks, ivory artefacts taken by the British in 1897 and dispersed in Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benin Altar Tusk. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Benin Altar Tusk), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Request

Good day, Please can you help review my last pending draft at the moment a "Draft:The Next Star Awards". Thank you. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheChineseGroundnut Hi there, don't worry, a reviewer will take a look soon. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I see that you are going to several users' talk page to request review. You don't have to stress on that as a reviewer will definitely take a look at it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, Thank you. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Added discussion to village pump

I added a discussion to the village pump, but then I realized it would be better on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. Should I move it or just notify them there. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 76#Polish village names automatically butchered by bot. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Hi there, I think it would make sense to just notify the WikiProject at the talk page. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was Silviu Istrate drafted?

Why? Because many sources are from YouTube? They are all verifiable if you speak Romanian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.251.179 (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSPYT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

it says this: "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, MAY BE treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK."

(the last paragraph doesn't count, since none of the videos are copyrighted and are used a lot by 3rd party sources)

I repeat: if you speak Romanian, you can see that all the videos I posted are made by Silviu Istrate himself. I said "Silviu Istrate has self-described himself as a democratic socialist" - in the video I gave as a source, he says that he is a democratic socialist. I also said that "Silviu Istrate is anti-Zionist" - in the video I gave as source, he said that "zionists have no place on his livestream" and that "zionism is fascism and colonialism". I wrote that "Istrate opposes the existance of the state of Israel" - again, you can see in the video where Istrate says that Israel is illegitimate and should be destroyed. I wrote that "in an interview with genștiri (a romanian news page), Istrate refused to condemn Hamas" - in the video I gave as sources, uploaded by genștiri, Istrate is asked by genștiri if Hamas are terrorists and he says that "I am not in the position to judge". And so on. All the sources are reliable in the text I added, posted by Istrate himself, not by anonymous accounts. I wrote exactly what he said, I made no interpretations whatsoever. Therefore, I think that the article should be published. I am waiting for your reply. RAMSES$44932 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@RAMSES$44932 I would very much advice you to familiarise yourself with when a source is considered self-published. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wizkid

Thanks for weighing in on Wizkid's article edit war. I've clearly provided evidence of reliable outlets calling him "One of the greatest" to @User:DollysOnMyMind, but he still edits based on his own opinion. He added "singer" and he's an artist which is improper, and he doesn't only sings Afrobeats, so the proper word should be "African artists". I hope you can talk to him to stop the edit warring, and edit based on facts. These are the evidence; [1][2][3] Yotrages (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages you seem to be more worried in deleting what Vanderwaalforces wrote in your talk page instead of actually reading it. Give it a second look, he was kind enough to give you instructions to what Wikipedia actually is, something that (as showcased by your contributions on Wizkid) you seem to be clueless about. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind look at who's talking, Adding "singer" to his article lead is dumb enough, but you went on to ignore the three articles I sent you and edit based on your own opinion. Yotrages (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fixing all the altered direct quotes you added to the article, at least show some respect to whose fixing your vandalism and please stop with this arrogant annoying behavior DollysOnMyMind (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages and DollysOnMyMind: Hi today. I have had a very busy day in real life, and I understand that you two were unable to resolve your differences on the article’s talk page. I find this unfortunate, especially after sending a detailed message to Yotrages. You two literally violated WP:3RR.

Fortunately, SarekOfVulcan has raised the protection level of the article to allow only administrators to edit it, which was something I was planning to request. Now that this has happened, I suggest that, if you two still have concerns with the current state of the article, please initiate a constructive discussion on the talk page and work out a solution, this time focusing not on your edit wars but on the NPOV issues and finding a consensus. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (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: Dieter Lloyd Wexler
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Electric Touch

Thank you for the notification, I didn't know how to place my review. So I think that was the last review, and I put mine there. So sorry. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages Hi there, don’t worry. Just have it at heart, the GA process does not work that way. Once an editor picks an article for review, they’re responsible for the review throughout the time it will take, and it’s an editor to a GA review unless the original reviewer asks for a second opinion. See WP:GA for better understanding. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yotrages (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) 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) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Paras Chopra

Hi, you reviewed the page Draft:Paras Chopra a while ago and mentioned a couple of thoughtful reason for decline of the Article. I have removed most of the content from the page that is not sourced from reliable sources. I have kept one section Draft:Paras Chopra#Nintee because it is true and he has spoken the same in multiple podcasts. I can't use them as a source so, have marked it as {{Citation needed}} for now. Is that okay? I can remove that section if needed.

Can you please review it again and see if it can be resubmitted in the current state? TIA. Waonderer (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Waonderer Hello there, please remove any detail that isn't backed up be RS. And please submit it for review at AfC. Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I see your Obas of Benin series, and I see your use of the Benin Bronzes. This is work that is both morally important and qualitatively excellent. Bravo you. jengod (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jengod Do I really deserve the writer’s barnstar? I’m so honoured, thank you so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2024 (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: Queen of Hearts
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Tiwalola Olanubi

Hello, how have you been. I hope your year have started on a positive note. I'm trying to improve the prose of this page Tiwalola Olanubi, so as to also fix the issues stated up top. Any help you could render at a convenient time will be much appreciated. Thank you so much Olakunle Rufai (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain

Please take a closer look at your close at Talk:Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain#Requested move 11 January 2024, especially by rereading comments from Amakuru and myself. Just because someone cites a policy doesn’t mean their position is actually based in that policy.

You may also consider what happened in similar RMs recently after closers or MR took a closer look.

• Wikipedia:Move review#Ferdinand VI of Spain (closed)
• Wikipedia:Move review#Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (closed)
• Isabella II
  • close of no consensus [4]
  • self revert upon further reflection [5]
  • subsequent close of moved [6]

— В²C ☎ 14:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Vanderwaalforces? Did you get a chance to review your close and the other RMs I listed? Here’s another with about equal !vote numbers but closer found consensus to move based on policy nevertheless: Talk:Nicholas_II#Requested_move_24_January_2024. —В²C ☎ 07:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Born2cycle Hi there, I intend to take time on this, I have been looking through, though. You and I know that the best bet is to close this particular discussion as no consensus, as closing as moved will not be a fair close, I must say. The article title could remain as is for now and, of course, later on another RM can be initiated for a clearer consensus. I totally understand from your point of view though, also seeing other discussions, the rationale of the supporters appears to make a lot of sense. But this particular discussion is best closed as no consensus.

I hope this helps, Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that NCROY (which encompasses consort article titles) is in line with CRITERIA I think it’s important that we title NCROY articles consistent with policy and guidelines, which includes closers weighing !votes in RM discussions according to basis in policy and guidelines. So, no, I don’t agree “no consensus” is a fair close, because I don’t see any actual basis in policy on the oppose side. Citing consistency with similar articles that include “of Spain” in their titles doesn’t count when “of Spain” in those titles is required for disambiguation, which is the case for those cited in the discussion. Giving weight to arguments not based in policy is not fair as it is contrary to WP:RMCI. But we can take this to MR if you still think it’s a fair close. —В²C ☎ 20:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Born2cycle Hi today, kindly go to MR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)