User talk:Vanamonde93

This is Vanamonde93'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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58: 31 days

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympic competitors (Aa–Ak)

I'm afraid this one may be yours to close... :) Owen× ☎ 12:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Haven't I looked at that before? (after checking) I see I relisted it, and there's been exactly one substantive !vote since. I'll relist again, and look in after a week. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good close! Owen× ☎ 09:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for 2025 Traverse City stabbing attack

Just want to say this was a good close. Not just because I agree with the conclusion, but I appreciate the reasoning and language that you used to reach the outcome. - Indefensible (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of John Simon South African Composer from Wikipedia 11/09/25

Deletion of my Wikipedia entry: John Simon South African Composer.

Dear Sir, I was very shocked about the deletion of my entry. It has been truly devastating for me. I can supply citations and references for almost everything, if only I had been given the chance. I have been once of the most performed South African composers and can supply Wikipedia with full details of almost every single performance of my work since 1978. There is little reference to my work in Afrikaans because of my political stance way back in the 1980s. Old resentments have led to my work being more or less being completely ignored in the Afrikaans press. The BBC have records of my performances and broadcasts, the Cape Philharmonic Orchestra can confirm the many Cape Town performances I have had there. The University of Pretoria has me on their website, as does New Music South Africa. All the entries in the British Music Collection are honest and validated as to whether the work has been published or not, as well as details of performances and recordings. I represented South Africa at ISCM 2018 and ISCM 2023, I won the South African National Youth Orchestra competition in 2011 and the SANYO's introduction can still be seen and heard on You Tube. The University of Stellenbosch have a collection of many of my scores along with all my recording pre 2008. This can be accessed online. My publishers are Accolade Muskverlag, Warngau, Germany.Although I also hold British citizenship as well as SA citizenship my loyalties are South African. I have worked with many black South African composers and orchestrated their work. As Composer in Residence to the KwaZulu-Natal Orchestra (2003-2005) I devoted myself to helping Christopher James, Zimbabwean composer. He helped me in preparing the new work Zizi Lethu for performance at the Barbican London for the 10 Years of Democracy concert with the LSO and KZN Phil. (November 16 2004).

I restate: I am an honest 81 year old person and have never falsified any musical information about my work. My Wiki entry predated AI by 10 years.

Trusting you will reconsider your decision and hopefully reinstate my article and I shall ensure that many more citations and references will be given.

Yours sincerely,

(David) John Simon Shepperton UK Rossini2025 (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rossini2025. If you read the discussion after which the article about you was deleted, you will see I was not the one to delete it: that was Stifle. I was the last person to recommend deletion though, so let me try to explain that recommendation.

To have a standalone article about a living person on Wikipedia, we need two things. The person must meet one or more of our standards for notability, and we must be able to write a biography with verifiable information based on reliable sources. The "living" part matters: we are much stricter in our application of verifiability than we would with a subject who is deceased.

In your case, I was not able to find evidence that you met our standards of notability, and I wasn't able to find independent sources (please note that we cannot use your own website for more than minor biographical detail, per our policy on writing biographies of living people and our guideline on self-published sources). I was dissatisfied with this outcome, as I stated at the deletion discussion: in the global north I would be inclined to think someone of your profile would receive enough press coverage to have an article.

In your case the applicable thresholds are the general notability guideline, which requires substantive coverage in independent reliable sources; or WP:COMPOSER, though please note that the criteria at the latter page are much more open to interpretation. You will note that verifiable records of your pieces being performed do not carry much weight with respect to these criteria. What we need are reviews of or commentary about your work or influence in sources that are not affiliated with you or your employers: so not your website, or those of institutions that you were affiliated with. A media profile or an entry in a biographical dictionary would seal the deal.

I looked quite hard for that sort of material: but it's possible I missed something. If you are aware of such, I would look into recreating an article. Reinstating the one that was deleted isn't going to happen even if sources are found, because it contained copious ureferenced content, and as noted above we don't permit that for living subjects. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of Georgina Bruni

I rarely object to a close but your comment about giving weight to certain views strikes me as a supervote. The question of whether policies and guidelines on writings about paranormal research is activated is being hotly debated at WP:RSN right now. As far as I know none of the policy-based keep votes were arguing for the content of her books, just the biography. This isn't going to DRV, not by me anyway, but this whole AfD has been infused with bias. Your closing comment, I assume unintentionally, tends to validate that bias. I would encourage you to reopen/relist or close as no consensus. Oblivy (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking nicely, but I respectfully decline to amend that closure. For one thing, as I said in my closing statement, numerically the discussion was heavily in favor of deletion, meaning that to reach a "no consensus" closure I would need to discount the "deletes" considerably. I don't see a basis for doing so. Second, the argument that some sources were unreliable because they give credence to fringe views was not initiated by me: it was stated many times in the discussion. And finally, WP:FRINGE explicitly addresses the use of sources to establish notability. If the RSN discussion reaches a consensus that Nick Pope's writing is good enough to establish the notability of a UFOlogist, please let me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notability section in fringe talks about the beliefs of adherents, and other editors repeatedly made clear that this was not what the sources were being used for. RSN has discussed some of these issues before without consensus and this time is likely to end in the same way. Anyway I appreciate you considering my comment, and for handling this messy AfD close, and ask you avoid "underweighting" the views of experienced and good faith editors in the future. Oblivy (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing words in close

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympic competitors (Aa–Ak). It is a solid close. However, it seems that a chunk right after "labor-inten" is missing. You might like to finish that sentence. Toadspike [Talk] 00:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I drafted off-wiki of course, but in a text editor that shouldn't do that sort of thing...thanks for letting me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in to preemptively say that I think the close was appropriate and that I wouldn't support taking this to DELREV because it's not the forum for that (and incredibly likely just to also deliver a no-concs result). I think an RFC might well also go no-consensus but if done somewhere with a lot of eyes on it more likely to deliver a result. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now opened the recommended RFC here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Alphabetical listing of all Olympians FOARP (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC on whether to keep or delete this specific list says, "this RFC was recommended in the close here". But reading the close, I don't see how it recommends for this RfC?

The only time an RfC is mentioned is as an aside, "...and I believe the intersection of lists of sportspeople with NOTDB is ripe for a community-wide RfC". I don't think that's the same as saying we should have an RfC on this specific list, which I fear is getting pretty close to circumventing the AfD process considering the AfD was closed just yesterday.

As a compromise, would you be willing to have a neutral admin create an RfC on the broader question of how lists of sportspeople intersect with NOTDB as recommended? --Habst (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP and Habst: My thinking was that the community needed to address whether clear inclusion criteria was enough for a group to pass NOTDB. This has been a point of contention before, and interpretation of NOTDB in this context was a clear divide in this AfD. I didn't intend to recommend an RfC on this list specifically. I can't tell anyone else what RfCs not to open, so if the community is willing to let this play out without procedural objections, perhaps some clarity will come of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's 9th Edit-a-thon

Hello Vanamonde93:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2025!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the theme What Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk), Spookyaki (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wikientry for John Simon South African Composer

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]

Persistent violation of caste article rules despite multiple warnings

Hello Vanamonde93, the user Minakshi Pillai, Seems to be an aggressive caste warrior and has been violating the rules on contentious caste articles in spite of being informed and warned!

The user has been targeting articles related to the Vellalar caste with abusive and inappropriate edits, as seen in the following revisions: 1 2 3 4 5

At the same time, the user has been promoting the Vanniyar caste, as evidenced by the following revisions: (1 2)

This user has previously been temporarily banned for abusing another editor and has received multiple warnings (1) for making cherry-picked, disruptive edits in articles related to South Asian social groups.

Despite these warnings, the user has continued to exhibit the same behavior. Around 90% of the user's edits have been disruptive and vandalistic. It is clear that this user is not here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. (WP:NOTHERE) 2409:40F4:2056:95FB:CE:50B1:71C7:208C (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were warned by RegentsPark earlier today, and in any case I'm not inclined to act on conduct they have previously been sanctioned for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editor

From my side I haven't done anything wrong, just tried editing and expanding articles based on valid historical sources. Nothing more Minakshi Pillai (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian war

Don't worry I'm not here to complain about the close, I'll leave that to someone else. It appears the RM hasn't been properly closed (archiving the discussion hasn't closed the request). I can also see the option to close/relist above the RM template using rmcloser which is another clue, along with the fact the template remains. I digress. Could you fix please? CNC (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference I would click close and select "moved", but the issue is it would re-archive the discussion and not sure if that would work. It's likely to break it and it's not my close to break as it were. CNC (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now, hopefully. I should install the closing script. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes would recommend. It also adds/updates the Template:Old moves on talk page. CNC (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I am happy with this close, but even if it had been a result I didn't at least partly favour, I would still have been happy with the level of analysis that went in to the close, which had to be quite a bit given the sprawling, multi-faceted discussion. That couldn't have been easy. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: I wasn't certain you'd be happy with it, so thanks for the note. If the RM had been limited to the first proposal it would likely have ended in no consensus: I think the discussion during it allowed consensus to develop for the second proposal. It did take a chunk of time to parse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to say, respect for managing to handle that can of worms. I can't imagine how much agonizing over tone and context every sentence took, being careful not to ruffle a single feather, while parsing and taking into account every argument. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In all honesty it was far from the worst I've seen - I appreciate the participants keeping it relatively civil, and as I said above the option that had consensus emerged from discussion during the proposal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitey on the Moon

Hey, interesting article, as always, but would you mind undeleting the earlier page at this title? It seems that when you moved the new page from your userspace, you also deleted the old one ... but its AFD resulted in a redirect and the old talk page history is still around. I found out about this situation because "Whitey on the Moon" was referenced in this Youtube video about Edward Makuka Nkoloso; I tried to check out the early redirects to "Whitey on the Moon" (as part of my usual procedure to find out whether a page needs a history merge) when I came upon this situation. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. To be honest I don't think I realized it had history, I created it after reading sources and seeing we didn't have a page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found it interesting, by the way. It was fortuitous timing on my part: three months later the song was featured in a Lovecraft Country episode, and got a whole lot of interest again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks; I'm pleasantly surprised how old the first revision is, but I'm disappointed (but really shouldn't be) about how little the page developed from there; no wonder it got redirected. It shows how influential a first stab at an article can be, sometimes. Great timing re your creation, indeed. Graham87 (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found in my work on South African music that it's a field very ripe for further work, because it's recent enough that there's often very substantive print material that's accessible with some effort but not recent enough that everything is online. The limiting factor is just how much time someone can devote to it. I'm willing to bet there's a half-dozen more Gil-Scott Heron songs that could have articles but don't. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Tiwari author

This page is deleted. I agree some information was from not very famous media source but other was genuine and reliable. He is a renowned author and deleting that question credibility to wiki. He is a well known author than thousands are present on wiki. Kindly consider recovery and ca be modified as needed. 2405:201:1:A1E6:3C67:EF2D:4302:73EB (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted that page as a result of this community discussion, which determined that Tiwari did not meet our inclusion criteria. I don't have the power to overturn that consensus unilaterally. If you believe this person meets our inclusion criteria by way of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, you may create a draft article at WP:AFC. Please be aware that the page also had significant concerns with promotional editing, which we do not permit. Any future draft would need to address that as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arb enforcement

Hi, just letting you know that I responded to your latest post here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

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

News and notes: Larry Sanger returns with "Nine Theses on Wikipedia"; WMF publishes transparency report

This time "not merely negative".

In the media: Extraordinary eruption of "EVIL" explained

Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.

Disinformation report: Emails from a paid editing client

Unexpected news!

Discussion report: Sourcing, conduct, policy and LLMs: another 1,339 threads analyzed

Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.

Community view: The pressing questions of the modern WWW, as seen from the Village Pump

Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.

Recent research: Is Wikipedia a merchant of (non-)doubt for glyphosate?; eight projects awarded Wikimedia Research Fund grants

And other recent publications.

Opinion: Some disputes aren't worth it

When to walk away.

Obituary: Michael Q. Schmidt

Rest in peace.

Traffic report: Death, hear me call your name

Celebrities, deaths and software.

Comix: A grand spectacle

All invited!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi, I have a couple of questions

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.
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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

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

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]