User talk:Karellen93

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Appeal

Hi! I'd like to request lifting the BER restriction imposed in October 2025. My behaviour in late 2025 was not what it should have been, however in 2026 there were no issues in IP topic area or elsewhere. Last time I checked, the % of my edits in that area was about 16% and I intend to maintain this balance. The reason for my request is that there are some grey areas in non-article space - like a noticeboard topic in which the IP conflict is mentioned in passing - and I'd rather not violate the restriction accidentally. Alaexis¿question? 19:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen this but would like to think on it further. If I haven't responded fully within 24 hours, please remind me. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Bumping it up. Alaexis¿question? 10:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
@Alaexis: On the one hand, you've stayed consistently below the limits imposed by the BER. I appreciate the diversification of contributions, and on that basis I'd be willing to grant the appeal. On the other hand, the edits I'm looking at within PIA suggest to me a focus on high-profile disputes and the most contentious pieces of content, rather than an attempt to build content more generally. The BER is usually used to dissuade editors from that sort of focus. On the balance I will grant this appeal, but I ask that you make an effort to do more than simply hold the line on major disputes. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 04:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

I want to report User:Orientls for this move. It completely derailed the discussion from a discussion around encyclopedic value of addition of non-notable Garba performances into something totally unrelated, that is, discrimination against Muslims and Dalits by Hindutva orgs.

Background on what happened at Garba and Talk:Garba:

  • Orientls adds a couple of non-notable, WP:NOTNEWS incidents about public embarrassment caused by performances at public spots and changes the title from Recognition to "Prevalence"(?). These incidents were previously removed by Gotitbro
  • I revert the addition with "WP:UNDUE and WP:Notnews. Before reverting read WP:VNOT"
  • Zalaraz reverts with "No, it is due here"
  • I undo the stating "Per WP:ONUS, make an attempt to build consensus before tag-teaming with Orientls"
  • Zalaraz reverts me again with Says you, edit warring without any prior history to this page
  • I start a new discussion on the talk page asking Orientls and Zalaraz straightforward questions asking them to explain edits/reverts. I cc Gotitbro, who is an involved party.
  • User:Gotitbro responds with policy-based arguments reiterating why these incidents don't belong
  • Orientls edits my topic header such that it merges into into an older discussion started by Zalaraz that has nothing to do with the text current topic. Moreover they don't use an edit summary indicting what they just did.
  • Orientls and Zalaraz then respond with comments that are related to Zalaraz's previous topic, ignoring to directly respond to the questions I raised.
  • Newer participants (obviously clueless) are then led to respond to Zalaraz's previous discussion causing confusion. I am like how

— Longewal (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Longewal: I cannot take administrative action in these disputes, and ask that you refer them to WP:AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-23

MediaWiki message delivery 21:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

AE - Tiamut

I decided to raise this here, rather than derail the AE thread. It's my understanding that only the conduct of the subject and the filer can be examined at AE. Are you questioning GordonGlottal to gain context for Tiamut's actions, or are you intending to censure them? Riposte97 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I questioned GordonGlottal because they arrived to post a rebuttal to my observations. I am not precluded by making observations that derive from my reading of the evidence posted. It is the filing parties who are restricted from dragging other editors into the discussion. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Follow up on Political ideologies in the United States AfD

Greetings,

I wanted to talk to you about the AfD for this page. I noticed that you sided on the keep side of things, but I did not see where you provided your reason for your decision or why you rejected my arguments. My understanding of the AfD process is it's not a popular vote of which side gets the most votes; they win, but the best arguments are given more weight. When I looked at that discussion, I did not see any response to the arguments I made and the problems that that page has. The votes to keep did not have much argument to them at all. I am a relatively new editor, and I am finding this decision confusing. I appreciate any insights you can give me.

Thank you Dd3r1n0 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dd3r1n0: In essence, an article should be taken to AfD when there is a valid argument against its continued existence, such as those listed at WP:DELREASON. The arguments you offered largely had to do with content problems in the article, which are rarely so serious as to require outright deletion. They should instead be fixed as a part of the ordinary editing process. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:DELREASON, content forks are grounds for deletion. I found significant content fork(s) in the article, and I listed a couple of them. I am not trying to argue as the decision is already made, but it seems like I am the only one that actually reviewed the article. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Content forking can be a valid reason for deletion, but your argument did not gain consensus. It is worth reading WP:SS also; the distinctions between POV forks and valid spinoff articles are subtle. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
I see the problem. I am basing my viewpoint on the following page and this section. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline While you are referencing consensus generically, 5 votes to keep and 1 vote to delete. In the context of this deletion discussion, all of the guidelines of "arguments not to make in a discussion" appear to me like they were not followed. I am looking at 5 weak responses and then my actual review that pointed at real problems on the page that were never addressed. Now that I understand what happened in this AfD discussion and I find I disagree with your position, is there a way I can appeal this issue? How does this aspect of the AfD process work? Dd3r1n0 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
As the closer, I assessed the substance of the participation, not just the numbers. The arguments to keep were based in policy. If you wish to appeal, the venue is WP:DRV. As an experienced closer of AfD discussions, this one wasn't even close; so I do not expect an appeal to be a productive exercise. But I cannot stop you. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
This is great feedback, and I am just trying to learn. I have found that many policies on Wikipedia don't quite contradict each other but do allow for a surprisingly wide latitude of interpretation conflicts. This is the first time I recommended an article for deletion. Did I fill out the AfD wrong because I did not include policy on my initial opening of the AfD? I did come back and put a detailed report on a few issues with policy cited. I am trying to understand why the policy I cited was rejected while the policy the other 5 cited was accepted. I am not trying to be a pain here; I do not understand the difference. I was expecting a little back and forth once I posted specific issues to address the generic arguments given by the Keep side. If you have the time, can you give me more details? What I am looking for with you is where I went wrong and if I had done it differently, the delete would have been accepted. I appreciate your feedback. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Recognizing that a variety of interpretations of policy are possible is an essential first step. WP:PAGs place limits around content, but within those limits are a wide range of organizational outcomes that are permitted by policy. Having a discussion closed contrary to your position is not necessarily a sign that you did anything wrong. In this case, it may have made a difference if you had outlined POV fork concerns at the outset; if nothing else, it would have meant more people would have engaged with them. I suspect it would not have altered the outcome here, because an overview of political ideologies in the US, written by an experienced editor and brought through the GA process, is quite unlikely to be so out of order that outright deletion on quality grounds will gain sufficient support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedia

Please contribute to other Indian languages also. ~2026-33242-99 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry

I forgot about the redirect category shell, I went back and fixed some I had created. I was creating redirects for victims of mass shootings in the United States when they were the sole fatality of an attack as I felt that might be a search term for some readers. Raskuly 🐰 03:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Raskuly: Not a problem, the redirects were fine. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-24

MediaWiki message delivery 21:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 10

MediaWiki message delivery 22:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors – June 2026 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2026 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2026 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April.

Election news: Nominations for the mid-year coordinator election ends at 23:59 on 15 June. Voting will last from 00:00 on 16 June to 23:59 on 30 June. Results will be announced on the election page.

April Blitz: 18 of the 21 editors who signed up for the April 2026 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 122,993 words in 56 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

May Drive: 34 of the 66 editors who signed up for the May 2026 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited 543,972 words in 211 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

June Blitz: Our June 2026 Copy Editing Blitz will start on 14 June and finish on 30 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 22:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 132 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 1,691 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image of Bengaluru

hello sir I apologise but that image you have added to the infobox was never ever in the infobox it used to be in the economy section as a wide image, it's more than 15 years outdated . The previous infobox image was deleted from commons so i had added this updated 2025 image and actually this 2025 image has been a longstanding image on the page.Vijaydanny (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Additionally though, it is a very strange editorial choice to headline an article about a city with a single commercial building. But that is not an area I typically edit in, so I will leave it be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of conduct of User:Orientls

Diff:

Hello. I would like to request that an administrator review the conduct of User:Orientls in relation to the discussion referenced above. The editor has argued that Jawaharlal Nehru's tenure as Prime Minister can be extended by counting the 1946 Constituent Assembly election, despite the fact that the office of Prime Minister of India did not exist prior to independence. In my view, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter and has resulted in the advancement of a position that is not supported by the historical record. I am concerned that this may raise issues relating to competence and adherence to core content policies. I would appreciate an independent review of the editor's conduct and the appropriateness of their continued advocacy of this position. Relevant diffs and discussion are available above for examination. Thank you. ~2026-34962-90 (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I am involved in this discussion and cannot take administrative action. Please take any concern you may have to the appropriate noticeboard. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-25

MediaWiki message delivery 16:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia 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|contribs) 08:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

AlphaChip

Hi Vanamonde, do you have anything else to add at User talk:asilvering#AlphaChip? Your input would be very helpful. Thanks again, LovinLifer (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realize further input was needed. Skimming the history, I'm fairly sure G5 wouldn't apply even with a sock block (there are too many other contributions) and so a new AfD is needed. If you let me know when it's launched I will drop a note in about procedure. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Federal subjects of Russia 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|contribs) 01:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

Thank you

I would like to express my sincerest thanks for this. I was formulating some evidence, but I felt I didn't have enough for an SPI. Thanks again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was asked to take a look by the protecting admin, and I felt the overlap was clear enough that a check was warranted, with the results you can see. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

SPI

Sorry to bother you here. I saw the SPI discussion and I don't know exactly where to write this there, so I'm putting it here for you. regarding the discussion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thebiggangwiki/Archive, I think the user BroBkiw is also the same person or at least they are collaborating closely, because he created the article Draft:Gianni Matheja in both English and other languages. And Thebiggangwiki also created the article about him in many languages. Balabush (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that an editor you've already blocked was also involved in this promotion (https://ha.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musamman:Contributions/Grizzybear5). Balabush (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
 Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thebiggangwiki. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, is your treatment for all Wikipedias? Or just English? Because I entered other Wikipedias and for some of them it seems that even the administrators are not very active. Balabush (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Just English. You may want to report them on de-wiki; I noticed that two of the accounts are currently active there. I don't know if they've done anything blockable there, though. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
thanks Balabush (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-26

MediaWiki message delivery 13:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 11

MediaWiki message delivery 22:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-27

MediaWiki message delivery 11:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

  • MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
  • Ohio Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
  • Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
  • A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
  • Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Slava AE filing

I've got concerns that the current AE represents a pattern of behaviour based on what happened at International Association of Genocide Scholars in late May and early June. The whole thing was a boondoggle but what really rankled me, and has never sat right with me was this interaction where I included information transcluded from another WP page, Slava added more material to it, Jason Gen reverted Slava's addition and then Slava reverted both Jason Gen's edit... and mine... based on what I might best describe as a somewhat unkind reading of WP:GANDER. However I know that there's been little interest from admins in AE filings in this CTOP for editors expanding scope such that the filings become cascading pile-ons so I thought I would ask you, as one of the overseeing admins, if my presentation of diffs from this earlier conflict would be welcome or if it would be wiser just to stay out of this one. And please note that if you say stay out I would not expect you to treat the diff I am providing here as any evidence in that filing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer you submit evidence within this report, though I will for fairness sake need to give Slava additional words to respond. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done so. And I entirely understand they should have a right to respond. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Oversight changes

readded
removed L235

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)