User talk:Vanderwaalforces

Hi Vanderwaalforces, I saw that you are active in WP:WREQ and was hoping you would take a look at my recent request on the James Ossuary page. Given your experience with archaeology-related topics, I'd appreciate your expert input. I'm concerned that the language in the lead is misleading; it suggests an ongoing balance of doubt, whereas significant academic and legal developments since 2012 lean heavily toward authenticity. My goal is to ensure the lead reflects the current scholarly consensus rather than outdated accusations.

I would like to point you to these key references:

The Legal Verdict (Criminal Case 482/04): In paragraph 143, Judge Aharon Farkash states: "According to Prof. Krumbein... the patina on the ossuary developed over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and the patina within the inscription and on the ossuary were formed during the same period. Prof. Krumbein’s conclusion in this matter was not refuted and is accepted by me." Furthermore, in paragraph 133, the court accepts that natural patina was found in both parts of the inscription, strengthening the contention that the entire text is genuine.^[1] This is also quoted in English in Feldman's book (below).

Academic Publications: Post-trial, the inscription was published as authentic in the prestigious Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae (CIIP) by a team of leading scholars.^[2]

Additionally, geo-archaeologist Prof. Howard Feldman, in his comprehensive study (chapters 10-11), concludes: "Judge Aharon Farkash’s verdict... clearly contributes more than ever to the strengthening of the contention that the inscription is genuine."^[3]

The current lead pales in comparison to these definitive findings. I look forward to your thoughts on how to make the article more precise and factually up-to-date. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ncyclist26 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Ncyclist26, I am sorry, I will not be able to tend to this right now. Please sort things out with the editors trying to review your request there as I think they're making good efforts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello how are you doing vanderwaalforces I must say I like your content and I appreciate it Liv morgan74 (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Liv morgan74 Thank you for saying something that nice to me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

you are welcome if i may ask do you watch WWE? Liv morgan74 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Liv morgan74 No, I don't. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ncyclist26 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Bot broke a citation template at this edit (ref 6). |journal= is not the correct parameter for {{cite news}} but regardless, |journal= is an alias of |newspaper=. cs1|2 does not allow more than one of an aliased parameter in any citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, journal! Thanks for letting me know. I wonder why one would use journal param for a cite news template in the first place, lol. But yeah, it’s an alias. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

In the first instance, I am contacting you directly with my opinion on the deletion of this article; if preferred, I am happy to do so via a 'Deletion Review', but thought this may be easier. I apologise for any breaches in Wikipedia etiquette, I am a new user who hopes to learn best practice and become an active contributor to the project. With that being said:

Dan Gheesling deletion review

I am writing in relation to the deletion of [Gheesling&redirect=no|Dan Gheesling’s Wikipedia page] (or, more accurately, the page now redirecting to Big Brother 10 (American Season).

I believe that Dan Gheesling fulfils at least some of the "Notability criteria" such that his page was unjustly deleted. Dan himself has elucidated some of his appearances and notable actions on George Ho's talk page, however I will attempt to address the criteria myself.

Basic criteria for “notability”

As you will be aware, the criteria state that people are “presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. A lack of clarity around the term “significant” leaves the matter somewhat subjective and, with my limited experience on Wikipedia, I have considered this on a “reasonable person” basis as is a common approach applied in common law, a field in which I have considerable experience.

Below are a few examples that I believe would be considered by such a “reasonable person” to render Dan Gheesling “notable”:

• Big Brother Season 10 winner
• Big Brother Season 14 contestant
• Traitors Season 2 contestant
• Actor in a TV movie “The Revengers”
• Twitch streamer with over 150,000 followers, live Monday-Friday most weeks
• Youtuber with over 130,000 subscribers.
• Podcaster. Although now somewhat inactive in his own right, he has previously hosted and co-hosted a number of podcasts covering different topics. He has also appeared as a guest on many podcasts.
• Self-published author in the business and leadership genre.

As a Big Brother contestant, Dan has been the subject of extensive media coverage from multiple sources that meet the requirements outlined above (i.e. they are 1. Significant, 2. Reliable, 3. Intellectually independent and 4. Independent of the subject).

Below are non-exhaustive lists covering Dan Gheesling’s notable accomplishments. It should be noted that these articles vary vastly in their opinion of Dan Gheesling, demonstrating their independence, both intellectually and from the subject, Dan Gheesling. Some of these articles praise Dan’s performance, while others provide substantial criticism of his feats, for example IMDb describing him as “The worst traitor ever” and Polygon stating Dan had “One last shot to win back my respect”.

Yahoo article

Entertainment Weekly

Daily Mail

RealityTea

As a Traitors contestant:

IMDb

Variety

Vulture

Polygon

As a Twitch Streamer/Youtube personality:

Gamesradar

Dexerto

I am of the opinion that the above more than satisfies the “Basic criteria” for notability. While unconventional, Dan Gheesling’s shift from traditional media as a reality TV personality to an internet personality has resulted in him remaining a relevant public figure.

Furthermore, I believe that reducing his career in the public domain to a redirection to “Big Brother 10” is misleading and misrepresentative of a long and varied career.

Additional Criteria Basic criteria for “notability”

In addition to fulfilling the basic criteria of notability, I note the additional criteria by which a person is “likely to be notable” should they meet any of the standards.

Traitors Emmy: Traitors Season 2 won the Emmy for ‘Outstanding Reality Competition Program’. I would argue that any participant in the “Reality Competition” is, to some extent, responsible for the critical acclaim the show receives. Had the show had entirely different contestants, it is highly likely that it would not have received the same plaudits. Furthermore, in the case of Dan Gheesling, his inclusion in the series contributed to the “star power” and his presence was more significant on the show than many of the other competitors.

While I accept there is a large degree of speculation, I believe this to be relevant to the matter at hand insofar as it contributes to the case for Wikipedia page reinstatement.

“Entertainer”

Another additional criterion for notability relates to the person having “significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows … or other notable productions”.

In the plainest terms, it is evident that Dan has appeared in multiple notable television shows. A large degree of subjectivity arises from the definition of “notable”, however I believe that his role in The Revengers as well as his ongoing livestream show puts him over-and-above the threshold of “notable”.

In assessing Dan Gheesling’s notability, I have had due regard to the “invalid criteria” and am of the opinion that neither of the points raised in this paragraph are of relevance to Dan Gheesling. He is a notable person in his own right  and is not subject to any search engine manipulation as far as I am aware (with one minor exception - he is one of the top image results when the term “normal human person” is entered into Google. I believe this to be irrelevant to the matter at hand).

On a personal level, I am concerned as to the nature of the discussion required prior to deletion of an article. Contained within the Articles for deletion discussion, highly subjective and speculative remarks as to Dan Gheesling’s contributions were made. The conversation between George Ho and Asteramellus appeared to arrive at wholly unbased and incorrect conclusions:

“To counter your interpretation of WP:ENT, this person made just two significant roles but only in Big Brother. His role in The Traitors wasn't that significant probably. If it were, probably his past Big Brother win must've caused him to be eliminated early there. Even then, his amount of roles isn't that plenty enough to meet the first criterion of ENT. I've yet to see evidence that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” ~ George Ho

“Thanks George Ho. WP:ENTERTAINER points are either 1 or 2, and it seems he meets #1. However, I think there is lack of significant independent coverage - looking again at reliable sources, seems coverage is mostly tied to Big Brother 10 - did not see much sustained coverage. So, agree with the redirect.” ~ Asteramellus

The above exchange demonstrates the lack of understanding of the criteria by the proposer; as remarked upon by user Asteramellus, the criteria for an entertainer very clearly states 1 or 2 must be true, a person need not satisfy both facets of the criteria.

This is, of course, irrelevant given that Dan Gheesling already fulfils the Basic criteria, despite the incorrect conclusion of user Asteramellus that the coverage is mostly tied to Big Brother 10 - there is extensive and sustained coverage of Dan Gheesling’s other exploits in the public arena.

It deeply saddens me that Wikipedia is being administered in such a way that important information is being deleted with little scrutiny of the decisions and with flagrant disregard to the standards by which notable people are to be judged.

In summation, I believe that I have demonstrated that the reasonable person would consider Dan Gheesling to be of sufficient note as to warrant the existence of his own Wikipedia article. He evidently meets the criteria outlined for being a notable person by Wikipedia’s standards.

I strongly believe that the reduction of Dan Gheesling’s article to a mere redirection to the main article for Big Brother 10 is highly misrepresentative as it gives the false impression that Dan Gheesling is only known for his appearance on Big Brother 10, giving no regard to the other reality TV shows he has appeared on, nor his extensive public online presence. This would be akin to having an article for Donald Trump redirect to an article for The Apprentice; While not strictly incorrect, it would omit a huge amount of information, resulting in something tantamount to misinformation and flies directly in the face of Wikipedia's mission.

I appreciate your time in consideration of this matter and look forward to your response in due course.

Kind regards, Hambuster1 Hambuster1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hambuster1 I am not willing to give this wall of text a read. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, long story short, I think the Dan Gheesling page was incorrectly deleted. The wall of text is my opinion on it, I would be grateful to hear your opinion as to why it was deleted. Hambuster1 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I just checked the discussion in question and I happen to be the closer; there was a clear consensus to redirect that article to the target, but if you think otherwise, I advise you to try WP:DRV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'll go down that route instead. I believe the consensus is somewhat misguided. Hambuster1 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

{{subst:DRV notice|Dan Gheesling}} <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Hambuster1 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hambuster1: As I see, you've yet to figure out how to use the WP:Deletion review process well. The above one proves my point... methinks. George Ho (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi George,

No - I have no idea how to use this function, I don't think this affects the veracity of my argument for reinstatement of the Dan Gheesling article, methinks. I would appreciate your help in this matter if you would be so kind.

Thanks in advance! Hambuster1 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

George, you are the most helpful person on the internet, and this one post proves it. Not only did you help the person trying to get a hold of you, you also made sure that the wiki team of editors comes across as professional and totally not condescending at all. Oh wait, you did the opposite of both those things. Whoops, methinks. ~2026-10808-09 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on January 30. Please help translate.

---

Highlights

• Wikipedia Library: Wikipedia Library gained new content partnerships, restored access to the British Newspaper Archive, and added an Arabic language academic resource with more than 7 million records.
• Gender gap: The Celebrate Women 2026 campaign will run from March 1–31 to advance the achievements of the women’s rights and gender equity movement globally.
• Annual Planning: The Annual Plan is the Wikimedia Foundation’s description of what we hope to achieve in the coming year. We invite you to shape this plan together with us. Between now and the end of June 2026, we will have continuous conversations about how global trends may shape our future, how we can experiment, adapt and respond together.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Patrolling improvements: A new feature available on Special:Contributions shows temporary accounts that are likely operated by the same person, and so makes patrolling less time-consuming.
• Wikifunctions: How Abstract Wikipedia articles can be integrated into Wikipedia language editions to enable Wikipedians to write an abstract article once and have it available in many languages.
• Suggestion Mode: A new Beta Feature for the VisualEditor, Suggestion Mode, is now available on English Wikipedia for experienced editors. This features proactively suggests actions that people can consider taking to improve Wikipedia articles, such as "add citation", "improve tone", or "fix an ambiguous link".
• WDQS Blazegraph Migration: As part of the migration away from Blazegraph (the current backend of the Wikidata Query Service), an initial evaluation of open-source triple store candidates has been completed. Using the published evaluation methodology, performance, stability, and compatibility was assessed.
• Tech News: Latest updates from Tech News week 06 and 07 include the new Watchlist labels feature that allows logged-in contributors to organise and filter watched pages in ways that improve their workflows. They also link to the 44 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events

• Funding Principles: The interim Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC) has published a first version of the Funding Principles which guides the broader grantmaking ecosystem across the Wikimedia Movement. Share your feedback in the Discussion page.
• Wikipedia 25: Celebrating 25 years of Wikipedia in Warsaw.
• Responsible AI: Why the Global Index on Responsible AI matters for Wikimedians.
• Open Knowledge: Why the Open Knowledge Movement and Public Interest Journalism must unite forces. Shared principles and interdependence, points of convergence and the path forward.
• Journalism Awards: Applications for the Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards are now open until March 1. Presented by the International Center for Journalists in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, the awards seek to recognize African journalists whose reporting helps close knowledge gaps about Africa on Wikipedia.
• UN General Assembly: Wikimedia Foundation was invited to speak at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) hall about Wikipedia’s role in global digital governance.
• Advocacy: Wikimedia Foundation has adopted new and updated policies regarding the use of banners, logo changes, and blackouts on the projects, particularly for advocacy purposes. Specifically, the new "Use of Wikimedia sites for advocacy purposes" policy, and updates to the guidelines for CentralNotice usage and requesting wiki configuration changes. The policies establish clearer processes for advocacy activities, and require notification of Foundation staff for some proposed uses of the Wikimedia sites.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

• Wikimedia Futures Lab: Reflections from a Wikimedian who attended the Wikimedia Futures Lab.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, if you still have intrest to help me clean some more issues, was wondering if you can help with fixing 18,025 broken subst of parser functions of User:ReferenceBot/inform/top - {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} which should just be It is Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Are there edge cases we need to investigate? And what namespaces should we be looking at? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

17,950 are on the User talk namespace. Which seems safe to let a bot run on that. If the code is not surrounded by <code>...</code>, <nowiki>...</nowiki>, <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>, or <pre>...</pre> then I don't think there are any edge cases. I guess you can search for the full sentence performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gonnym BRFA filed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Just saw edits like Special:Diff/1339634452: 1. "|last=Report|first=Agency" should probably be removed, though this issue appears to only affect just over 100 pages so could be fixed with a semi-automated tool. 2. Are you planning to expand the newspapers covered? Just at the same page, there are "Blueprint (newspaper)", "The Guardian Nigeria" and "The Sun Nigeria". Since these sources often seem to be autofilled by Citoid, it should not be harder to convert/link those? 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4 Hello. Re 1, this task actually doesn't cover those params, but I have plans to work on that too actually, i.e., removing lasts and firsts that clearly appear to be non-human names or org-like names, and as much as I know, it affects plenty of articles (definitely over 100). Re 2, those newspapers and several others (in Nigeria) are already covered, but the bot is running per newspaper, and not per article. It is currently working on all Daily Trust links, after that, it moves to the next. But the task is approved to work on any newspaper links that needs to be worked on, which I am yet to finish compiling, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks! 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on Feb 13. Please help translate.

---

Highlights
Let's Talk continues

• Birthday mode: This limited-time campaign feature celebrates 25 years of Wikipedia with a birthday mascot, Baby Globe. When turned on, Baby Globe is shown on ~2,500 articles, waiting to be discovered by readers. The feature is available for all Wikipedias to customise through Community Configuration until 6 April 2026. So far 17 Wikipedias have joined in the fun.
• Wikipedia's 25th birthday party celebrated on Commons: Content from the January 15th global birthday party selected as Media of the day.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Etherpad cleanup: For security and performance reasons, all current pads on Wikimedia’s Etherpad instance, the web-based "ephemeral" editor for real-time collaborative document editing, will be permanently deleted after 30 April. We will continue running this Etherpad instance to support events and other short-term collaboration, but will be periodically deleting data going forward. If you have content in Etherpad you want to keep, please create local backups, as data will be permanently deleted and will not be able to be recovered.
• Activity tab: Wikipedia iOS app has rolled out the improved Activity tab to all users in version 7.9.0. A/B test results showed increased account creation among users with access to the feature. Updates include enhanced editing impact insights, module customization, and relocation of History into the Search tab.
• Reference Check: The feature Reference Check has been deployed to all Wikipedias. In A/B testing, the impact was substantial: newcomers shown Reference Check were approximately 2.2 times more likely to include a reference on desktop (or acknowledge/explain why they did not) and about 17.5 times more likely on mobile web.
• Semantic search: The Foundation has launched a limited Android mobile app experiment that tests hybrid search capabilities which can handle both semantic and keyword queries. The Phase 1 beta is now live on Greek Wikipedia. The goal is to understand whether combining meaning-based retrieval with keyword search helps readers find information more effectively. Testing will expand to English, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias in March.
• Navigation experience: The Foundation will run an experiment for mobile web users, that adds a table of contents and automatically expands all article sections, to learn more about navigation issues they face. The test will be available on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias.

• Site notices: Site notices (MediaWiki:Sitenotice and MediaWiki:Anonnotice) now will render on all platforms, not just on the desktop site. Users on mobile web will now see these notices and be informed.
• Tech News: Latest updates from Tech News week 08 and 09 include the new “Edit full page” button for people who are editing a page-section using the mobile visual editor. They also link to the 40 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
• Wikifunctions: Abstract Wikipedia is going to have its public preview within the next few weeks, here is the preview.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events

• Gender gap: The Celebrate Women 2026 is coming! The Wikimedia Foundation will host a kick-off celebration that will work as a welcome session for both organizers and participants on March 5 at 13:00 UTC.
• Language: New edition of the Language and internationalization newsletter highlights new feature developments and improvements in various language-related technical projects.
• Let’s Connect Learning Clinic: Watch the recordings of past learning clinics about Wikipedia’s 25th Birthday Tool and Strengthening Local-Language Admin Communities.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: You can watch the recording of this month research showcase whose theme is about "AI and Communities".
• Hubs: Lessons from hub pilots.
• Banners & logo policies: Wikimedia Foundation has adopted new and updated policies regarding the use of banners, logo changes, and blackouts on the projects, particularly for advocacy purposes.
• Digital Safety: The next edition of Digital Safety Office Hours will be on Mar 27 at 9:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The session will explore practical threat modelling: a structured way to think about risks, assess your exposure, and make informed choices.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

• Wikimedia Enterprise: Ecosia Enriches Search Results and AI Answers with Wikimedia Enterprise.
• Human centered AI: Members of the Wikimedia Enterprise team presented on "Wikipedia in the Age of AI and Bots" at the seminar of Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.
• Inclusive AI: Advancing Open, Inclusive AI with Free and Open Knowledge at the India AI Impact Summit 2026.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 12:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

	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: Drm310
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, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you again for reviewing the draft of Hakeem Shitta and for your helpful guidance during the process. I appreciate the time you took to go through the sources and suggest improvements.

Best regards, Kunleoladimeji (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Vanderwaalforces and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

	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: GoldRomean
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, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

At this edit the bot added |location= to a cs1|2 template that already had |place=. These two parameters are aliases of each other so only one is allowed in any single cs1|2 template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk You rock! Thanks. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)