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.

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)#Polish village names automatically butchered by bot. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]