User talk:Vanderwaalforces

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2023/08 (August); 2023/09 (September); 2023/10 (October); 2023/11 (November); 2023/12 (December); 2024/01 (January); 2024/02 (February); 2024/03 (March); 2024/04 (April); 2024/05 (May); 2024/06 (June); 2024/07 (July); 2024/08 (August); 2024/09 (September); 2024/10 (October); 2024/11 (November);

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Your user talk page

Hello, Vanderwaalforces,

I can't help but notice that you keep your User talk page completely blanked. When I looked at your talk page archives, I see you have archived another message left for you earlier today that you didn't respond to yet. That is awfully quick. What if the editor returns to see what your response is? Of course, it's your user page and it's your call but if you want to be involved in processes like closing AFDs, you're going to regularly have editors coming here for explanations and with questions. You should leave messages up for at least a few weeks if not a month. Visitors to your takl page shouldn't have to go into your archived messages to see if anyone has come here with a problem. There is also no reason to "hide" messages if that is what your aim is. Every active editor has other editors communicating with them, sometimes it's positive and sometimes it's negative, it's the nature of collaborative editing.

But my recommendation is, since you seem interested in assuming more responsibilites on the project, that's it's not a good look to wipe your user talk page clean after every message you get. It shows a lack of responsiveness and the more you take on administrative work, the more discussions you will have with other editors about your decisions. You don't need to have an overloaded talk page like my own (which I really need to archive) but it's healthy to show a little activity here and if someone has questions, you should reply to them. Thank you for all of your contributions here, they are appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to assume you watch this page, so. Looking at VWF’s talk history, it will show that they are not the one manually archiving the pages. It is being archived by Cluebot. So, they’re not trying to hide anything. The recommendation to early archiving is to actually set the archive time to probably 300. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz! It’s great to see you here again, and thank you for reaching out. I had actually been expecting a message from you on my talk page since last week, so I’m glad it finally arrived. I realize pings may not notify you due to your settings, but I'll leave my response here for reference.

There are several points in your message that I believe may not accurately reflect the situation. I'll clarify why I feel your remarks are, in my opinion, "entirely incorrect".

You noted, I can't help but notice that you keep your User talk page completely blanked. When I looked at your talk page archives, I see you have archived another message left for you earlier today that you didn't respond to yet. That is awfully quick. What if the editor returns to see what your response is?. As of the time I received this message from you—07:49 on 12 November my time, 02:49 your time, and 06:49 Wikipedia time—the most recent human edit to my talk page was on 6 November. The last bot edit was Cluebot III archiving the latest discussion at 02:27 on 10 November. Your specific statement that I archived another message left for [me] earlier today that [I] didn't respond to yet does not match this timeline, as you can see. Perhaps, you have been typing this message for me in the last 4-6 days ago? I can't tell.

Thank you as well for suggesting that I extend the duration before threads are archived on my talk page. I realize now that I could adjust that to allow more time, and I'll make those changes following this message.

You also commented, There is also no reason to "hide" messages if that is what your aim is.. I think a quick look at WP:GOODFAITH might be beneficial for you here. I'm curious as to why you might think my intention is to "hide" any messages. For as long as I can recall, I have always made a point of addressing questions, listening to feedback, and acknowledging my mistakes when necessary.

Once again, thank you for the feedback—it's always helpful to have another perspective, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Closure World Defense Show

Hello, I noticed that the recent AfD closure did not seem to consider the source analysis table provided. This table was intended to offer a comprehensive look at the quality and relevance of sources related to the topic, and it would be very helpful to understand if there were specific aspects of the analysis you found less significant or if other factors took precedence in your decision. Could you clarify how the closure was assessed as "keep" in light of the available SAT which clearly proves otherwise? Thank you for your time and attention! TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TCBT1CSI. The AfD discussion you initiated was closed as "no consensus," not as "keep." These are distinct outcomes: "no consensus" indicates that the discussion did not reach a clear agreement, meaning the article could be renominated after approximately one month. In contrast, a "keep" result would reflect a consensus that the article meets notability guidelines, as confirmed by participants in the discussion.

I am sure this clarifies what "no consensus" means in this context. Regarding the source analysis you provided, my role as the closer is not to evaluate the sources myself, as doing so would constitute a supervote. My responsibility is to close the discussion based on the consensus established by the participants, not my personal judgment. In this case, there was no consensus to keep, merge, redirect, or delete the article. Please feel free to reach out if you have further questions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful explanation. I have one more question: since the AfD was closed as "no consensus," is it permitted to relist it for another AfD immediately, or is there a required waiting period, such as a six-month cooling-off? TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TCBT1CSI You're welcome. So, there is actually no exact waiting period before renomination, not that I know of. I think it is mostly discretionary. When I said "could be renominated after approximately one month" above, it was just from my discretion and not like it is generally stated somewhere, not even at WP:NOCONSENSUS. But I will not advise you to not "immediately" renominate an article whose AfD was closed as no consensus. You could wait for as long as you find more evidence and reasons it really isn't suitable for Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion; If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. I’ll be sure to follow this rule. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and the useful tips. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. No problems. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

AI and Nigerian English

Interesting article somebody shared with me. [1]. It's about how companies have outsourced a lot of their AI-trainers to African countries, such as Nigeria, which has led to lots of large language models favouring words used in those dialects of English. So, some of the "classic tells" that people use to see if a text was AI written? Those might just be tells that the person they're talking to is using a dialect of English they're unfamiliar with. But anyways, just wanted to share this with you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian Thank you for sharing this. It's really interesting to think about how much of AI's language quirks might actually just reflect everyday dialects from places like Nigeria. Makes you wonder how much of what people assume is "AI-speak" is just unfamiliar phrasing to them. Perhaps we'll need to revisit some of those "tells" for AI-generated text, as what we think of as authentic language may start reflecting a broader range of dialects and nuances. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Patrol

Hey, just made few edits to an article. Not sure if the events should have a separate article or exist within this article Boca Raton Championship Wrestling. Can you take a look and give possible improvements? Thanks. Highly appreciated. (Copied from archived) Freeoftheletters (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freeoftheletters Hi there. This is a pretty fine article. Thanks for creating and working on it :). No, the events do not need to have a separate article, it’s very fine as it is right now. Happy editing! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Gerda Arendt
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.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Usernamekiran
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.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evening, I'm a little confused

Hi! I was just looking at an AfD, and saw it had an AfD for a different article on the talk page for it. You made the change on this edit. Am I being a bit dim, or is that AfD for Godzilla: Monster of Monsters rather than Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski Evening! Oh, it appears XfDCloser did what it was meant to do but I didn’t notice it wrongly added an old AfD template there. The consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla: Monster of Monsters was to keep Godzilla. There was obviously no consensus to keep Godzilla 2. I will go ahead and amend that close to reflect this. And yes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters is apparently correct and should be able to tell whether Godzilla 2 should be kept or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]