About my edit on Godhra train burning
Hello, I found that part of content is biased. Can you add another reference to support that sentence?. Thanks - Nistha Ranjan Dash (Talk2me) 17:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- What about it is biased? It is supported by a solid source; and there are no reasons to doubt it's veracity. If you want to discuss whether this is due weight or not you can do that, but the place for that discussion is on the talk page of the article: and you certainly cannot remove arbitrary bits of text simply because they seem biased to you, when they are supported by decent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Rifa-e-Aam Club
On 16 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rifa-e-Aam Club, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Rifa-e-Aam Club in Lucknow was open to everybody at a time when British clubs excluded Indians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rifa-e-Aam Club. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rifa-e-Aam Club), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
SoWhy 12:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
Speedy deletion nomination of Tractors India Pvt. Ltd.
Joydip.B (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Hi Vanamonde93, You nominated Tractors India Pvt. Ltd.for speedy deletion, however i updated the article with reference links, & participated in talk pages also, i am new to Wikipedia, want to keep this company page active, please suggest
- @Joydip.B: Hi there. The best way for you to go forward is to carefully read the links posted to your talk page, and then to create a draft that complies with the policies that have been linked there, and use the WP:AFC process to create the article. I'm afraid the talk page that you have posted on will have to be deleted (since the article has been deleted) but don't worry, I have read it. Vanamonde (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Template issue reminder
Vanamonde, i understand the issue on WP:CRUFT within the templates that you're about to delete with:
Template:Current APEC finance ministers Template:ASEAN Foreign Ministers Template:ASEAN Finance Ministers Template:ASEAN Defence Ministers
and also the recent deletion of this template:
Template:Current APEC Foreign Ministers
As these templates are concerned, isn't there a way to make these templates non-CRUFT? Such removal would be unfair and a detrimental to undo all the hardwork being done given that despite all the reliable information as well the functions and purposes they have stating the representation of these template are legitimate. Earlier, you stated that few of them received any sustained attention in reliable sources as groups which i don't understand.
On the contrary, you should understand that ASEAN and APEC's foreign ministers and finance ministers in which they represent in their respective countries by ministerial meetings is same thing that the G20 and the G8 had done so. But if you really believe that such these templates that i have contributed are considered as a CRUFT as what you have really insisted, the alternative way would be recreating these templates in order to remove its description as CRUFT and to remove redundancy. Saiph121 (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies for a belated reply. The short answer is "no". The longer answer is that each sovereign country tends to be a part of a number of multilateral groupings: and if we created such a navbox for every position, for every grouping, we would be absolutely inundated with navboxes. G8 and G20 receive far more attention than the average international grouping, but even so, these navboxes are questionable. I don't think you have truly understood what cruft is, or why it is a problem. I would suggest that you try to broaden your perspective a little. Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative DNS Roots
Hi, someone keeps adding self-promotional sections to the Alternative DNS root page and I'm not sure what the correct course of action is. Writing this to you because you reverted the change once and you're an admin, so hopefully you know more about the correct procedure than me :) -- Jonah Aragon |Talk| 14:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JonahAragon: Hi there. Yes, there do seem to be some issues with promotional editing. The correct procedure would be to remove the promotional material, and then request semi-protection on the page, since the users are IPs or new accounts. This can be done by asking an admin (as you have done here) or by posting to WP:RFPP, which is usually quicker, as there is an option to do this easily in the twinkle menu. In this particular case, I have protected the page for a week. However, removing the content is not so straightforward, because although it does seem promotional, and is unsourced, so is a lot of content on that page. So, I'm going to leave that to you to clean up: any information that is in the form of listing prominent examples should be sourced, or it is probably falling foul of our policies. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning ITN
Hello. Since you're an admin and I don't want to be wrongly accused of canvassing, could you please post a note about the current ITN at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: There is nothing wrong, in general, with posting a neutrally worded note. In this case, however, the ITN entry in question does not address gender and/or sexuality at all, except inasmuch as it is about a person whose transgender status is widely known. Therefore, I'm uncertain that such a notification would be appropriate. What might be more appropriate would be to notify folks who are involved on that article already. Vanamonde (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is appropriate because as you say, "it is about a person whose transgender status is widely known," which means many editors in the WikiProject will be interested. Can you please do it? Otherwise I will ask someone else.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you believe it to be entirely appropriate, then place it yourself: if you don't believe it to be entirely appropriate, you shouldn't place it. If you are uncertain, then you should take the advice that you asked for. I have no intention of placing a notification: do what you will with my advice. Vanamonde (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- In light of "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." and "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.", I have done nothing wrong. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you believe it to be entirely appropriate, then place it yourself: if you don't believe it to be entirely appropriate, you shouldn't place it. If you are uncertain, then you should take the advice that you asked for. I have no intention of placing a notification: do what you will with my advice. Vanamonde (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is appropriate because as you say, "it is about a person whose transgender status is widely known," which means many editors in the WikiProject will be interested. Can you please do it? Otherwise I will ask someone else.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Ibn Tumart
Agh. I just put an edit-warring notice, and you froze the page for a week? I guess it's pointless now. Why reward his forum shopping? Can you at least freeze it as it was before the dispute? Walrasiad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Vanamonde. I took the liberty of restoring the article to its pre-edit warring version. Looking at the page history, it seems to be the right thing to do. Hope that's ok. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Yes, quite alright, thank you. It was one of those situations wherein the dispute is not symmetric, but both sides are being disruptive to a degree. Vanamonde (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of an entry for Professor Alan Sinclair
Hello,
Can you please explain why you deleted a page about an academic friend of mine called Professor Alan Sinclair?
He was mentioned by his school's wikipedia page but didn't have a page, so we created one with no agenda other than sharing his biography.
Rather innocent, or that's how it appeared to us. I can't see the problem, although I am new to Wikipedia, so please explain so this doesn't happen again.
Kind regards
Olly — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverJelley (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 20 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Narendra Modi page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
hindi wikipedia
जी, क्या आप हिंदी विकिपीडिया पर भी कुछ समय दे सकते हैं ? हमें आप जैसे लोगों से ही आशा है । भारत से और लोग विकिपीडिया पढ़ पाएंगे । आपके आभारी रहेंगे । GhaniBhai (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- FYI: This loosely means, "can you give time for Hindi Wikipedia, we need people like you, more Indians will read Wikipedia". Don't know how to reply though, Utcursch, can you help? this user has posted this to a few other people too. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, he's basically requesting people to contribute to Hindi Wikipedia. I have around 5000 edits on hiwiki, and I still lurk there sometimes. I stopped being active there because the community's convention of using ultra-Sanskritized Hindi put me off, but I may start contributing again sometime in the future. utcursch | talk 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Please start contributing to this beautifl language's database. There are already many English authors out there .GhaniBhai (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I certainly appreciate the work being done on the Hindi Wikipedia (and indeed, on the other Wikipedias which cater to the world's large non-english speaking population) I'm afraid I have neither the language skills, nor the time at the moment, to participate. I wish you the best of luck. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jacobo Árbenz
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jacobo Árbenz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Secondary schools proposal
Hi Vanamonde! Since we've met editing an India related article, it occurred to me to bring this proposal to your attention. It seems to me it might impact how we include items from India. But, I then realized I don't really know that much about India-related articles, or, in the grand scheme of things, very much about, well, India. So, I thought I would bring it to your attention and see what happened! (Having found you, should I sign this 'Alvin'? Or, in the case of your alternative account, 'Stormgren'?) Chris vLS (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Chrisvls: Thanks for the notification, I'll take a look at the discussion. It is indeed an interesting conundrum. As to the username, I'm glad you recognized it: I enjoyed those books, growing up. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of the page LEAD Business Growth
Hi Administrator,
Greetings of the Day!
This is in reference to deletion of the page LEAD Business Growth, a short while ago, for which I wish to provide some clarifications.
We created the page because it is a story about 'purpose' and 'resolve'. The page is not intended for marketing and promotion, in any form. The story is, definitely, going to be 'big' in the near future. I believe what went wrong is that we did not use references (links) of third parties, to verify the details. Given the paucity of time, this afternoon, we intended to provide the links tonight. However, in the meanwhile, the page got deleted.
As a resolution, we have furnished some references in the talk page of LEAD Business Growth. We hope that the references would suffice, to have the page restored.
Thanks and warm regards, Dheeraj Mirpuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadBizGrowth (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, there are a few issues here. First, a page can be promotional even unintentionally. Any page needs to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:V; yours did not. Second, it sounds like this is a group you are involved with: in which case, you have a conflict of interest, and should avoid writing about LEAD on that basis alone. Third, the talk page is that of a deleted article, and so I have deleted the talk page, too: if you wish to collect sources, please do so on a draft in your userspace. Vanamonde (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Username violation
Hi, thanks for addressing my speedy on Welding Electrodes manufacturing and zapping it. The user User talk:Omegaweldrod who created it has the name of the business it was promoting as their name here, could you address that when you have time? Thanks again! JamesG5 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, JamesG5. Username issues are actually one of the areas in which I am not very comfortable, and therefore I would ask that you report this to WP:UAA instead, rather than me taking the chance of unintentionally fracking up. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Will do! JamesG5 (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jacobo Árbenz
The article Jacobo Árbenz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jacobo Árbenz for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eurodac
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eurodac. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Dagar
With due respect, Dagar has been around since '09 and isn't a G4 recreation. Mind re-opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar (2nd nomination) and letting the discussion take place? Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I was too quick. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right, it wasn't. Do take a look at my comment there, though: I simply do not believe in coincidences such as this. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jacobo Árbenz
The article Jacobo Árbenz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jacobo Árbenz for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Paradises Lost
On 25 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paradises Lost, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the science fiction novella Paradises Lost was adapted as an opera? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paradises Lost. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paradises Lost), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Schwede66 12:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Suat Derviş
On 26 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suat Derviş, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Turkish novelist and journalist Suat Derviş was the granddaughter of a slave? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Suat Derviş. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Suat Derviş), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Harrias talk 13:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
CapTech
Hey! I have rebuilt the CapTech site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCapTech)
I tried to keep it as neutral as possible...I apologize I didn't see the 'please don't modify' edit at the top. Hopefully the changes are acceptable, I literally kept it as boilerplate as possible to get some basic information out there.
Let me know if you have questions or concerns!
Thanks,
Kinighton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinighton (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Kinighton: I'm afraid it is a bit of a problem. I've undid your edit there, because what you modified was not the article about CapTech, but a deletion discussion about it. I have therefore reverted your edit there. What you should do is the following: go into the page history, click on the version that you had edited (which I have linked here for your convenience), and copy over the text you added, preferably into a draft in your userspace (ie it should be titled something like "User:Kinighton/CapTech"). Then, once you are done, I would recommend using the WP:AFC process to create the article. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Napoleon Hill
There is absolutely no historical evidence that Napoleon Hill was a suspected con man. If you search through the history of reputable periodicals, there is simply no evidence. Over 40 years after this man's death, a blogger "investigated" his theory that he was a con man and the only "evidence" he could find was that a historian who studies Andrew Carnegie now has no proof Carnegie met Hill, which is a claim Hill often made. Again, there is no evidence from Carnegie himself or his family or any writings of the time, simply that someone who studies him currently has no proof that they met and clearly doesn't believe it. For a dubious blog article that makes an outrageous claim and uses little to no actual evidence to back it to be used as the "source" behind calling a man who did good for so many a "con man" in the first line of his description in an encyclopedic article is more than incautious, it's despicable. Further, when I changed the article and removed "suspected con man" because there were no credible sources with actual evidence, and changed his description to "author, philosopher and lecturer," all of which are verifiable, indisputable facts, I was accused of vandalism and puffery.
Facts are puffery but removing unsubstantiated, slanderous accusations from a deceased man's description is vandalism? Whose ethics or legal understanding does this represent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:8203:EEDB:3D60:6F66:1938:7BD8 (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- You need to either find reliable sources supporting your assertions, or demonstrate that the sources in the article are not actually credible; merely saying something is false is not enough. And you need to do this on the talk page of the article in question. Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Sally Yates and Jeff Sessions
I'd appreciate if you could weigh in here Talk:Jeff_Sessions#Video on a dispute about a video that an editor is trying to insert into 3 different articles. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Pollokshaws Bowling Club - Deletion - Please reinstate
Hi
please can you restore our deleted page on Pollokshaws Bowling Club so we can at least store in the information. We do not agree with the deletion as our club is important to the local community of Pollokshaws in Glasgow, and also expats who have moved to Australia, Spain, New Zealand etc. It has history dating back to 1854.
Some might define it as obscure, but it is an important living document to pass on to the generations that will follow us.
Also one of the reasons for deletion is that it has no independent nobility... I disagree. Our club has produced THREE Scottish National Champions in our sport (1909, 1944, 2014) and currently has a Scottish under 25 internationalist, Stephen Lowrie Junior, who has played on television in Scotland!!! So perhaps we suffer as Lawn Bowls is a minority sport, but that is not our fault!
And actually in 2017 one of our members Lyn Wallace has been elected President of Bowls Scotland (the national governing body for our sport).
But if you still feel it has to be deleted (which I personally feel is a little bit mean and against the spirit of Wikipedia) then can you please allow us the opportunity to save the information.Marcus9000 (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
But I hope you reconsider and allow us the great opportunity to use Wikipedia to share our successes and history with the world. • contribs) 08:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Marcus9000 (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issues with that article, as stated in the PROD, were that it did not demonstrate notability, and was not adequately sourced: see WP:GNG and WP:V. I cannot, therefore, reinstate it as it was. I can move the deleted version to a draft in your userspace, where you can work on it: however, I will only do this if you commit to working on it to bring it in line with Wikipedia's standards: such a draft should not be used merely as a repository of information. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok that is fine by me. That would be great, thanks. Can you let me know when you move the article over please? Marcus9000 (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus9000 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, then, here you go: User:Marcus9000/Pollokshaws Bowling Club. I will reiterate, though, that this is a long way from being an appropriate encyclopedia article. In addition to the links I've given you above, please read WP:NOTDIR. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Cheers. Marcus9000 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2000. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Mukurtu Archive
Thanks for the note, Vanamonde93. I think you misunderstood the message I left on the talk page contesting the deletion. I didn't use Wordpress blogs as a model for the page on Mukurtu. I used the Wikipedia article on Wordpress as a model for starting an article on Mukurtu. That makes sense to me, since both are notable content management systems (albeit for different reasons). I appreciate the links to notability, neutrality, and reliable sources. I've read them. I defended the article using the criteria and terms Wikipedians have established for those tests. You have given no reason at all for deleting the page aside from a misreading of my note on the talk page. I think the article deserves to be reinstated. Mukurtu has sparked discussion of traditional knowledge and indigenous rights among CMS developers while supporting indigenous communities all over the world. Do you have any specific reason to delete it? I'm inexperienced here, as you must know, but I do understand the Wikipedia policies in question. And I know what it means to assume good faith. Blueandblack (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- The reasons for deleting the page are straightforward: it did not demonstrate notability, and despite some cleanup, it was not neutrally written. It therefore met speedy deletion criteria A7 and G11, was tagged as such, and was deleted. I will not reinstate it, for the same reasons. If you still believe you can create a policy-compliant version thereof, I would suggest the following: read the links I posted to your talk page, find reliable sources discussing this topic, write a draft based on those sources, and use the WP:AFC process to create it. If you want, I can furnish you with a copy, in your userspace, of the article that was deleted; but I will only do so if you commit to using the AFC process for it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, sure, please add the deleted article to my userspace. I'd appreciate it. Blueandblack (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go: User:Blueandblack/Mukurtu_Archive. Enjoy. Vanamonde (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, sure, please add the deleted article to my userspace. I'd appreciate it. Blueandblack (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Paradises Lost
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paradises Lost you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Paradises Lost
The article Paradises Lost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paradises Lost for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Help with difficult editor
Hey, Thanks for your help with Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III articles. I am a bit worried about the editor who uses multiple unregistered IP's (103.27.220.21, 27.100.20.252, 43.249.129.233, 103.17.198.244, 43.249.131.132). I think this is the same user because he uses the same references and keeps arguing the same point. These edits have been reverted by multiple editors([1],[2]) for lack of credible references and multiple attempts to get the user to discuss on the Talk page have failed. The user has not been very civil either in the RfC. Last, the user has also indulged in personal attacks on me ([3]). Any help or advice on how to deal with the user will be much appreciated. Also, will the decision of this RfC be binding on all articles related i.e. Brahmos, Hsiung Feng III and List_of_surface-to-air_missiles#Taiwan. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Adamgerber80: Okay, I took a look at this situation, and unfortunately there is no magic bullet here. The IP's behavior is not ideal, but it is not completely out of order, and I cannot semi-protect the article under the circumstances. If the edit-warring resumes again I will extend full-protection (or you can post at RFPP again); but the other editors are not entirely justified in performing any number of reverts, as disputes about sources and such are not an exception to the 3RR rule. I will leave a more generic note about edit-warring, sources, and civility on the talk page. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde Thanks for your note on the page and I think that it was very helpful. The point I was trying to make earlier is that none of the other editors(except the one mentioned above) actually violated the 3RR rule since most of them(including me did not revert the edit 3 times in the same day). The editor in question is who I suspect of violating the 3RR rule via multiple IP's(assuming he/she is the same person). Please take a look at the revision history of Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III for confirmation. I believe he has reverted 4 times on Brahmos on 1 February 2017. Lastly, how do we reach the conclusion for an RfC where the editor has not provided any sources(contrary to the one of the manufacturer) but is building on speculation and conspiracy theories. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Vanamonde, thanks for helping out on Talk:Hsiung Feng III, among many other places. As the RfC is drawing to a close, editors are pointing out that similar behaviour to that exhibited by the IPs Adamgerber80 has pointed out is happening to other related articles, and that those articles along with Hsiung Feng III should be semi-protected. Thoughts? Blurp92 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Here are some more IP's to add to that list, 49.77.132.106, 45.120.200.30, 45.120.201.201, 103.27.220.21, 45.120.200.30. And possibly 2 more articles Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction and Brain size.
- I'm afraid there is not much to be done here. There is not sufficient disruption on the Taiwan page to protect it: the Brain size page has a content dispute that I have now participated in, but even if the IP is being problematic, we cannot simply lock them out (yet). And the range is too wide to block, in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, L3X1, Blurp92 I think we have sufficient disruption in atleast the first 3 pages I mentioned on the RfC to semi-protect them for a short term of time. I will monitor the Taiwan page for the near future. Also, I believe there is a case of SOCK now where the editor claims that all these IP's in fact are not same person but different editors. Here are more IP's to add to the list 103.27.221.123, 103.17.199.211. I did a bit more digging and these IP's are indeed from different countries but they all belong to the same ISP, Powerhouse Management INC([4]). So we can say with some confidence based on the pattern of arguments, language and direction of argument that this is indeed a single person. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Let's not jump the gun, alright? None of those pages have been edited in the last couple of days, and as I have said before, semi-protection cannot be used in a content dispute. At this moment, I am unwilling to protect any of those pages. If you disagree with my decision, you are welcome to post to RFPP, but the decision is unlikely to be different. If the situation changes, ie the IP editor ignores the RFC and resumes edit-warring, I might change my mind. 13:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I will abide by your decision. Just FYI, the reason none of these pages have been edited has been because 2 of them are fully protected and third one has incorrect info(added by the IP) which we did not edit waiting for the RfC to close. Can we go ahead and remove the incorrect info from these pages once the RfC is closed? Also, will you please unprotect these pages so we can make them RfC compliant. Lastly, the IP's was because some editors involved in the RfC think that there is a strong case of SOCK going on and I wanted your opinion on a SPI. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- The pages will be unprotected automatically soon, but you should wait for the RFC to be closed before doing anything, ideally. I wouldn't bother with an SPI. It seems fairly clear that this is a single person: but unless there is very clear evidence that they are pretending to be multiple people, there isn't much point in filing an SPI. Even in that case, all an SPI would do is to make things a little easier in the future when you can say "This is a sock: look at this SPI". SPIs are usually used to tie registered accounts together on the basis of shared IPs and such: in this case that is not relevant, and the IP is able to hop, which makes blocking useless, too. Try to reach consensus. Let's take it from there. Vanamonde (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it seems fairly clear that this is a single person but the editor claims otherwise. Quoting the editor when another editor brought up SOCKS was "You and I both can see very clearly that the IP addresses come from different editors from several different countries. Yeah, so I'll fly to Japan today and tommorrow I'll go to Australia and the day after I'll fly back to Alabama, USA, get real brah! You should speak for yourself before pointing fingers and making false accusations!". Anyways if you think we should not pursue an investigation so be it. But I wanted it on record that an editor from these IP's did try to SOCK the discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- After doing a bit of digging, I found out the reason why Geolocate puts the IPs all over the place: Powerhouse Management isn't an ISP; It's a VPN, with 700+ servers across 70+ countries on 5 continents and, get this, over 200,000 IPs. From what I can gather, a user can switch between their servers as many times as they want, which explains a lot. Blurp92 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd gathered as much: which is why an SPI is mostly pointless. The only purpose it can serve is that of documentation. Anyhow, there's not much points discussing hypotheticals here anymore: try to reach consensus, like I said, and take it from there. If the IP ignores consensus and resumes edit-warring, semi-protection for disruptive editing becomes an option. Vanamonde (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I see. I'll keep a close eye on the page once the full protection expires. If consensus is ignored once again, well, you know what'll happen next. Blurp92 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- The IP hopper is back and disrupting at-least 3 articles. I have requested SEMI for Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III where there have been 2 disruptions. Any help or advice is much appreciated. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-protected both those pages; enough is enough. Vanamonde (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Here is another page Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Two more pages Brain size Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction. 1 which is covered by the RfC and one is on a unrelated topic. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-protected both those pages; enough is enough. Vanamonde (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- The IP hopper is back and disrupting at-least 3 articles. I have requested SEMI for Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III where there have been 2 disruptions. Any help or advice is much appreciated. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I see. I'll keep a close eye on the page once the full protection expires. If consensus is ignored once again, well, you know what'll happen next. Blurp92 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd gathered as much: which is why an SPI is mostly pointless. The only purpose it can serve is that of documentation. Anyhow, there's not much points discussing hypotheticals here anymore: try to reach consensus, like I said, and take it from there. If the IP ignores consensus and resumes edit-warring, semi-protection for disruptive editing becomes an option. Vanamonde (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- After doing a bit of digging, I found out the reason why Geolocate puts the IPs all over the place: Powerhouse Management isn't an ISP; It's a VPN, with 700+ servers across 70+ countries on 5 continents and, get this, over 200,000 IPs. From what I can gather, a user can switch between their servers as many times as they want, which explains a lot. Blurp92 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I will abide by your decision. Just FYI, the reason none of these pages have been edited has been because 2 of them are fully protected and third one has incorrect info(added by the IP) which we did not edit waiting for the RfC to close. Can we go ahead and remove the incorrect info from these pages once the RfC is closed? Also, will you please unprotect these pages so we can make them RfC compliant. Lastly, the IP's was because some editors involved in the RfC think that there is a strong case of SOCK going on and I wanted your opinion on a SPI. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Let's not jump the gun, alright? None of those pages have been edited in the last couple of days, and as I have said before, semi-protection cannot be used in a content dispute. At this moment, I am unwilling to protect any of those pages. If you disagree with my decision, you are welcome to post to RFPP, but the decision is unlikely to be different. If the situation changes, ie the IP editor ignores the RFC and resumes edit-warring, I might change my mind. 13:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, L3X1, Blurp92 I think we have sufficient disruption in atleast the first 3 pages I mentioned on the RfC to semi-protect them for a short term of time. I will monitor the Taiwan page for the near future. Also, I believe there is a case of SOCK now where the editor claims that all these IP's in fact are not same person but different editors. Here are more IP's to add to the list 103.27.221.123, 103.17.199.211. I did a bit more digging and these IP's are indeed from different countries but they all belong to the same ISP, Powerhouse Management INC([4]). So we can say with some confidence based on the pattern of arguments, language and direction of argument that this is indeed a single person. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is not much to be done here. There is not sufficient disruption on the Taiwan page to protect it: the Brain size page has a content dispute that I have now participated in, but even if the IP is being problematic, we cannot simply lock them out (yet). And the range is too wide to block, in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Here are some more IP's to add to that list, 49.77.132.106, 45.120.200.30, 45.120.201.201, 103.27.220.21, 45.120.200.30. And possibly 2 more articles Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction and Brain size.
- Hey Vanamonde, thanks for helping out on Talk:Hsiung Feng III, among many other places. As the RfC is drawing to a close, editors are pointing out that similar behaviour to that exhibited by the IPs Adamgerber80 has pointed out is happening to other related articles, and that those articles along with Hsiung Feng III should be semi-protected. Thoughts? Blurp92 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Vanamonde Thanks for your note on the page and I think that it was very helpful. The point I was trying to make earlier is that none of the other editors(except the one mentioned above) actually violated the 3RR rule since most of them(including me did not revert the edit 3 times in the same day). The editor in question is who I suspect of violating the 3RR rule via multiple IP's(assuming he/she is the same person). Please take a look at the revision history of Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III for confirmation. I believe he has reverted 4 times on Brahmos on 1 February 2017. Lastly, how do we reach the conclusion for an RfC where the editor has not provided any sources(contrary to the one of the manufacturer) but is building on speculation and conspiracy theories. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Adamgerber80 (talk) please refrain from academic dishonesty. This information has been here on this article for a very very long time due to both consensus and reputable sources from China News, please refrain from you disruptive edits. The article originally stated for a very long time that "ROC successfully conducted its diminutive nuclear test in southern Taiwan in the 1980s." China News is indisputably a reputable source, please read: http://www.chinanews.com/2000-1-7/26/14868.html 27.100.20.36 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- The two pages that I could have protected, I've protected already; the third dispute I'm a little too close to to protect. Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and I got them protected via RFP. Here are some other list of pages which I believe are under disruptive editing by the same editor.List of human spaceflight programs, National Space Organization, National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Stealth ship, Hypersonic speed. They show the same pattern of POV pushing and persistent editing without building consensus from an IP hopper. I am not sure what we can do about this or know the extent of disruption on other wiki pages. Just wanted to let you know. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Request protection
Hi Vanamonde93. Can you request for protection to this article GMA Network Inc. and GMA Network since they destructive editing to this article from the autoconfirmed user. Thanks Kazaro (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Kazaro: I've semi-protected both pages for a week. Thanks for letting me know, but just fyi it's usually a little quicker to post to WP:RFPP. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Protection for Michael White (author)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Punishment_sisyph.jpg/220px-Punishment_sisyph.jpg)
Hi @Vanamonde93: thank you for protecting the page for Michael White (author), after DVdm's request. There's no harm in going through the chain of increasingly long protections, but in case you do have any questions, the Azul411 sock archive and Michael White revision history will show that the vandalism of Galileo-related pages and Michael White's page are, unfortunately, linked. I feel somewhat guilty not having had much time recently to help DVdm with the issue, especially since they predicted that increased protection at Galileo and Galileo Affair would transfer the sock's attention to Michael White. Best, Darouet (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, Darouet. I too am quite happy to increase the duration of protection on articles as necessary: it is talk pages that I am reluctant about, as that is generally discouraged by the protection policy. Anyhow, thanks for keeping a lookout. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you Vanamonde93! I will try to keep an eye on the article and associated talk page, in order to help DVdm out. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Previously, the editor requested protection for this page and was rejected. It was stated that the discussion should be solved. Despite this, He wanted protection again. And the editor has asked for support from other people in the discussion. He canvassed the discussion. Please could you see with your own eyes. Protection it was an incorrect decision. There are misleading statements.--88.251.8.4 (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, I really could not: I know nothing about the topic. The protection is not an endorsement of either version: neither of you can edit the page, and you need to come to a consensus through discussion on the talk page. It is just your bad luck that the version that got protect was not the one you wanted. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- FYI User_talk:NeilN#IP-hopper.2FIP-sock --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Thanks. If he returns after protection expires, I'll semi-protect. Vanamonde (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- FYI User_talk:NeilN#IP-hopper.2FIP-sock --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
louisP Ltd
New to Posting, please forgive errors. the page for louišP Ltd. received a request to delete fron Vandamonde. I feel your first review was correct due to the notable aspects of the referenced stories not being included. I did not create the article, I edited it just now, to include the aspects of the articles which are notable in that 1. These people from over 20 countries teaming up to create and launch a website is a business development which has never been done 2. the interface coding allows a user to get to and from any city of the world faster and in fewer steps than any other website and without the need to type 3. the interface coding allows the user to explore every single genre of entertainment within every city of the world without the need of typing and this is unlike any website 4. therefore this business development design as well as the interface coding are both unique and notable. Eliminating steps to a user's discovery of information is a notable creation of a design
<"iconoLand: Entertainment Events Around The Corner and The World!". qcostarica.com. 27 October 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2017.>
<"iconoLand.com ready to launch". thebftonline.com. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> < Danny, Diazion (7 September 2016). "The Spotlight on Ghana is About to Launch". patriarc.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"louisP Limited". hkgbusiness.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"Lanzan sitio web IconoLand con eventos y actividades de entretenimiento en todo el mundo". elfinancierocr.com. 26 October 2016. Retrieved 28 January 2017.> Briscoma (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please create a draft of this article (ie the title should be "Draft:[title]" or "User:Briscoma/[title]" and submit it via the WP:AFC process: I do not have the time nor the background knowledge to go into this in such detail. Vanamonde (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope my response is received well
I hope my response to your request for deletion is received well and that you see my revisions as a worthy edit which merit's the page for louisP remaining Briscoma (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Jacobo Árbenz
On 5 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacobo Árbenz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that democratically elected Guatemalan president Jacobo Árbenz was toppled by a CIA-sponsored coup in 1954? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacobo Árbenz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jacobo Árbenz), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
- WikiProject report: For the birds!
- Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
- Traffic report: Cool It Now
- Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
DYK for Carlos Enrique Díaz de León
On 7 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carlos Enrique Díaz de León, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Carlos Enrique Díaz de León once refused a bribe of US$200,000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carlos Enrique Díaz de León. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carlos Enrique Díaz de León), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rolta India Page Deleted
Hi, I noticed that the Rolta India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolta_India was deleted due to unambiguous promotion or advertising. May I know the parts of the content that look promotional. I had a chat with wiki moderators while posting the article and got it verified and they seem to be fine with it. Is there a way I can restore the page. If yes what are the areas I can improve on. I am new to wikipedia and any kind of promotional content here was purely unintentional. Awaiting your response Jovian 13 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was unaware of any conversations, but when I look at the deleted page, it was promotional in nature, intentionally or otherwise. I could go into great detail, but in short the issue is that it read like a resume for the company, rather than an encyclopedia article. If you try again, you should avoid all uses of the company's website, avoid corporate jargon, avoid providing details that serve no purpose besides promotion (quality benchmarks, ISO ratings, office addresses, trivial awards (so most awards)), and stick to content that can be supported by WP:RS. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Betty Tebbs
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!
Hi Vanamonde93, thank you very much for supporting my project to reduce the Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement! --Gnom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Reza Aslan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reza Aslan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the thorough review of Wehrmachtbericht. The article is much improved for it! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: You are most welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted Post: Mohammed Sani Haruna
@Vanamonde93: Thank you very much for your understanding and responses on the article Mohammed Sani Haruna, i appreciate and i undertake to abide by the rules to have the article properly edited to address the promotional concern. your guide and assistance to achieve it, is highly solicited too. kindly advice further on the steps to take and what to take out, to avoid any promotional content.Francisozohu (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisozohu (talk • contribs)
- @Francisozohu: Okay, I have restored and moved the draft into your userspace. Please read up on WP:N, WP:V WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, edit the page to make it conform to those guidelines, and then use the WP:AFC process to submit your article. Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Harassment by IP hopper
Hey, sorry for the constant barrage of edits on your Talk page. I am facing a unique situation where I am being constantly harassed by the IP hopper. He/She goes through my daily edits and undo's without any explanation. Some of these edits include removing vandalism, un-cited content and someplace added cited content. I can give you diffs and more proof. Here are few of the 15 odd examples: [5], [6], [7]. I am not sure how to deal with this without violating 3RR. I am also pretty sure it is the same IP hopper since IP's match to the same VPN being used earlier. Any ideas how to resolve this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Adamgerber80: Much as I'd like to help, I'm afraid I can't think of very much to do. We cannot very well protect every article you edit: and blocking an IP hopper is not much use. If the IP were posting disruptively on your talk page I could protect that, but I don't see that happening. The only possibly useful advice I have is to raise this on ANI, and see if wiser minds than mine can think of something. Sorry I can't be of more help, Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes raising it at ANI would be great. Maybe someone else has faced this problem before and can provide suggestions. One suggestion I had which I think is not possible would be to hide my contributions pages since he/she uses that. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any technique to do that, sorry. Vanamonde (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes raising it at ANI would be great. Maybe someone else has faced this problem before and can provide suggestions. One suggestion I had which I think is not possible would be to hide my contributions pages since he/she uses that. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Kalhor tribe dispute
- @Vanamonde93:,
On a dispute about repeated deletion of inserted citations by a user, I raised the issue in WP:3O. The request moved by you and I don't know why. Could you please help in this dispute. Best Shadegan (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Shadegan: It was removed because a) there were more than two people involved, and b) I left a comment on the dispute anyway: did you not read it? The gist of it was that you need to provide more detail with respect to the sources you were using: and please keep the discussion to the talk page of that article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Brian Cain
@Vanamonde93:
I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia. Would like to reach out regarding a page you formerly deleted about Brian Cain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cain
In an attempt to create this, it is evident that this was previously deleted per lack of notability.
Could you please take a look at the following resources which reference Brian and let me know what else might be needed to get this profile created:
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/110014572/strong-body-and-mind-fuel-cubs-jake-arrieta/
http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/build-mental-toughness
http://usatodayhss.com/2016/recruiting-column-interview-with-brian-cain-peak-performance
http://martialarts.about.com/od/mmaandufc/a/mentaltoughnessmma.htm
http://www.dbknews.com/archives/article_ff2ebc78-c9de-11e3-af5d-0017a43b2370.html
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/02/12/cain-bulldogs-break-blocks/
http://www.sportsnet.ca/blogs/mma/gsp-feels-rouseys-title-loss-pain-like-no-other/
http://www.sagacombat.com/blog/meditation-and-mental-training-in-combat-sports/
http://cscca.org/events/speakers?job=bio&id=57&even_id=71
Jholiday382 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Jholiday382: I have no particular expertise in this particular area; and honestly, I don't have the time to dig into each of those sources in great detail. After a cursory look they seem borderline at best; and considering the fact that this article has been deleted via a deletion discussion, I would generally want better sources. You should look for things that are a) independent of the subject, b) have editorial oversight, and c) are significant publications; ie not simply the local newspaper of a town of 100 people (for example). Additionally, should you try to recreate this at all, you should probably use the WP:AFC process, else you run the risk of being seen as disruptive. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: What is the difference between Creating an article? Is there anyway I could receive access to create the page for Mr. Cain?
47.185.10.206 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- The difference between creating an article and what? Using the AFC process? AFC requires you to create a draft (ie the title would be something like "Draft:Brian Cain") and you would then follow the instructions at WP:AFC to submit it. The difference is that unless and until the draft is approved, it is not generally visible as a Wikipedia article. IP addresses cannot create articles; you must log in to do so, and since you seem to be the same person as the account that posted above, I would strongly suggest you log in; it is quite easy to fall foul of WP:SOCK otherwise. Additionally, given your many posts about Cain, at this point it looks like you have a conflict of interest with respect to him: in which case you should read that link, and probably avoid creating any such article. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre
11 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre was President of Guatemala for ten days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre, and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Maile (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted Annette Toutonghi due to PROD and then saw that it was created again by the same editor, once again being put on PROD. Would you delete it again and possible Salt the article to get the editor to stop creating the same page multiple times? GamerPro64 18:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: I have done so; but just a minor note, that a BLPPRODed article cannot simply be deleted, but needs to go through the 7 day waiting period, even if it is a recreation. I deleted it under CSDA7. Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
YGM
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Karst (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Carlos Castillo Armas
Hello, Vanamonde93 - I hope the copy-edit I've just completed meets with your approval. I am now re-reading the article to see if there are any issues I'd like to ask you about.
1) One is near the beginning of Carlos Castillo Armas#Decree 900 reversal. Would you take a look at these sentences?
- The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners. In only a few isolated instances were peasants able to hang on to their lands. This led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy.
There are two ambiguous pronouns in the last sentence. One is "this" at the beginning of the sentence. The other is "it" later in the sentence. Let's discuss "it" first. It would be better if you could substitute a phrase instead of "it". What was a "long step backwards"? I couldn't tell if "it" was the government's attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project or Árbenz's agrarian reform project. But keep reading. If we resolve the other instance of ambiguity, the ambiguity of "it" might be taken care of.
Now let's look at "this" at the beginning of the sentence. I'm pretty sure that when you say "This", you meant the government's attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project by seizing land from agrarian laborers and giving them to large landowners (and not the few peasants hanging onto their land). If I am correct, then the intervening sentence "In only a few instances..." puts distance between the pronoun ("this") and its antecedent, which is the first sentence, making "this" a little ambiguous. I see two ways to fix this. One is to minimize the intrusion of the short intervening sentence, either
(a) by making it a prepositional phrase tacked onto the end of the previous sentence:
- The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners, with peasants able to hang onto their lands in only a few isolated instances.
or
(b) by putting the sentence into parentheses:
- The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners. (In only a few isolated instances were peasants able to hang on to their lands.)' This led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy.
The other way is to expand the pronoun "this" and make it a phrase that makes it clear what "led the US embassy to comment".
You could also do both. I prefer (a) and expanding "this" at the beginning of the third sentence. Maybe "This move by the government", "This attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project", or "This seizure and transfer of land".
What do you think of this wording? –
- The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners, with peasants able to hang onto their lands in only a few isolated instances. This attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy.
If you word it like this, I think the problem of the ambiguity of "it" is taken care of.
(I'm a little puzzled, though, why the US embassy would say this, since it had supported Castillo Armas all along. Were they surprised Castillo Armas would undo Árbenz's project? I don't see how they could be.) – Corinne (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've modified the wording []: is this satisfactory? The U.S. supported Castillo Armas, yes, but there were many players within the U.S. government: I suspect that this was the work of an embassy official less willing to turn a blind eye towards Castillo Armas' activities than the CIA. Vanamonde (talk)
2a) In the Carlos Castillo Armas#Death and legacy section, this sentence seems somehow either out of place or isolated, not connected to anything else:
- Castillo Armas' death led to a marked increase in attacks in the Guatemalan media against the exiled Jacobo Árbenz.
I would move this sentence, or remove it, or add a few words to explain why this is significant and/or who historians think was behind the media attacks. That would make the sentence seem less out of place.
2b) Also, you've got two sentences in a row with "Castillo Armas' death", this one and the next one. It would be good to figure out a way to avoid this kind of repetition.
3) Also, two sentences later, you have:
- However, supporters of Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes rioted...
It's not clear at all why they would riot. Ydígoras Fuentes has not been mentioned in a while, and now suddenly it appears again. I think you should give a little more information here as to why Ydígoras Fuentes' supporters would suddenly break out into a riot. Was Ydígoras Fuentes standing in the wings, waiting for his moment? Was there a growing underground movement all during Castillo Armas' presidency? What was his base?
Just a thought.
4) At the very end of the Carlos Castillo Armas#Authoritarian rule section, there is a sentence with an error in it, but I cannot figure out what it should be. Here is the sentence:
- On 25 June 1956 government forces opened fire on student protesters, killing size people and wounding a large number.
You'll have to fix this one.
5) In the last paragraph in Carlos Castillo Armas#Aftermath is the following sentence:
- Castillo Armas also saw Monzón as having been late to enter the fight against Árbenz.
It's not clear why this sentence is here, or what the relationship of this to the negotiations was. (I know I re-worded this sentence slightly – you can compare your original sentence to this in the revision history – and I hope I didn't introduce a factual error with my re-wording.) It's obviously something negative Castillo Armas felt about Monzón, but was Castillo Armas using this to his own advantage in the negotiations? Was he raising doubt about Monzón's loyalty or suitability? Can you add just a little bit to give some context for this sentence and relate it better to the surrounding sentences? Well, that's all for now. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could help me make this clearer. Castillo Armas essentially saw Monzon as a bit of an upstart: that is what is meant by "having been late to enter the fight," except the sources use the latter phrase, and don't say "upstart." It's there because it has been described by scholars as a barrier to the negotiations. What would you suggest? Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind that I re-worded the sentence about the reversal of Arbenz's agrarian reform project. I didn't think we should use both "effort" and "attempted" since "effort" and "attempt" (noun) are near synonyms. I also wonder whether we need the phrase "from the previous policy". That seems to duplicate the first part of the sentence. However, with or without that phrase, it may not be completely clear what the embassy spokesperson meant by saying it was "a long step back". In light of what you said, above (that this was expressed by someone who may not have agreed with the CIA), I wonder if you would consider adding a brief explanatory phrase, something like:
- This move by Castillo Armas to reverse Árbenz's agrarian reform project led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy, suggesting that it was seen as a step in the wrong direction.
- Or would that be speculation, or "original research"?
- Regarding the issue of Monzón and the negotiations, do you think Castillo Armas said that because he questioned Monzón's loyalty, or because he didn't want to share power with someone he saw as an inferior, or because he was saying anything to undermine Monzón in the eyes of the CIA and thus get him out of the way? (I know both speculation and original research are not permitted, but what is your understanding of the sources you've read?) – Corinne (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Rising Phoenix World Championships
Rising Phoenix World Championships should NOT have been deleted. It is the official successor to the Ms. Olympia competition, making it the highest ranking female bodybuilding competition on he planet. Pls un-delete now. AHC300 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- AHC300: The fact is that the article was PRODed, and nobody bothered to contest the PROD, which is what you should have done. The deletion was therefore based in policy. Moreover, if the event is as important as you say it is, it should be easy to find independent, reliable sources that describe it. The sources that were in the article when I deleted it were far from sufficient.
Given that, I am not willing to simply undelete it. I would be willing to move it into your draft space, if you are willing to commit to not moving it before fixing the issues I mentioned. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Given that, I am rather reluctant to undelete it: I would much rather you worked on a userspace draft, which I am willing to provide you with, so that these problems may be addressed. Otherwise, it is more than likely that somebody will simply take it to AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Integrated Technology Group
Hallo, as you deleted Integrated Technology Group you might be interested to see the new article Integrated Technology Group (ITG). The correct article title is salted. PamD 13:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- @PamD: I've deleted this page as well, it's rather obviously promotional. I'm mulling an indef block for promotion for the user. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Integrated Technology Group page created
Dear Vanamonde93,
as you may know i cannot create Integrated Technology Group for several reasons
can you help me as an administrator to create this page for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heba Tabalat (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Heba Tabalat: In a word: no. The issue with the page is that it was quite promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promotion. You need to demonstrate that you can edit in a non-promotional manner before anybody will consider removing the protection on that page. Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
pending changes
Hi Vanamonde93, you added pending changes to Napoleon Hill in response to a claim of vandalism. I happened onto this page today and after examining the edits the IPs are not vandalizing the page. Instead, a named account has been making changes to the article using an unreliable blog post that is nothing more than an attack page on Gizmodo. The IP's are attempting to restore the stable, well sourced version of this article, while OmgItstheSmartGuy is edit warring with them to keep his changes intact. Please examine the edits by the IP's. You'll see what I'm talking about. Please then remove the pending changes on this article and allow the IP's to edit. IP attempting to restore stable, sourced material. here. I myself tonight attempted to clean up the lead but OmgitsTheSmartGuy immediately reverted my changes. The difference between the stable version and this editor's version seems to border on vandalism in plain sight. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Stable version of Napoleon Hill: [8].
- Version after OmgitsTheSmartGuy: [9].
The IP's were trying to protect the page, while OmgitsTheSmartGuy appears to have used the claim of vandalism to block legitimate editors from undoing whatever it is he's doing over there. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be as clear cut as I remembered it, but I don't think your description is entirely accurate, either. The "stable" version you linked to has numerous problems as well, including an over-reliance on books by the subject, which is usually indicative of an issue with promotional editing. Furthermore, the IPs were certainly being disruptive, and their edit-summaries do not augur well for a productive discussion. Finally, PC protection is not preventing them from editing; it merely prevents their edits from going live. With respect to "fixing" the article, PC protection has very little impact: reverting a pending edit is still a revert, for instance, and the protection is not allowing OMG to game 3RR or anything. Given that the major players here have probably watchlisted the article, there really is no difference with respect to the final outcome. On the balance, I'm going to let the protection remain, and would ask that you hash it out on the talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree on those points as I later went back over things, but it is noteworthy that instead of using the talk page to resolve issues, OMG went to PP claiming vandalism in what appears to be an attempt to prevent the IPs from editing. I can see that you obviously made the changes in good faith. If pending changes does not stop the IPs, then that's the best solution all around on that. But OMG does not appear to be editing with the best interests of the article in mind. I will take the issue to the talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleting of Page Overturned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_and_West_Midlands_(North_Sector)_Army_Cadet_Force
I am the author of this page and according to Wiki, I have the right as the author to have it removed. I need this page deleted ASAP. What can be done?
- It's been deleted. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pages by User:Shikaa
Can you also look at other pages created by User:Shikaa that I have tagged? i.e. Amit Kapoor, Akhil Kapur Coderzombie (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies for not responding sooner: but I deleted one of the pages, and the CSD has been (correctly) declined for the other. If you have doubts about notability, I suggest you take it to AfD. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahmados5 vandalism
I noticed you reverted an edit by Ahmados5 and gave a warning. Made no differece, (s)he has made a number of similar edits on other pages since, which I have reverted. There seems to be a distinct pattern here. I believe you are an admin; I'm not too au fait with these processes, but might a ban be in order? Emeraude (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Emeraude: It isn't vandalism strictly speaking, but the addition of spam links, which is in many ways just as bad. They had not been given very many warnings, though. I've left them a final warning: if they add spam again, I will block them indefinitely. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Narendra Modi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Narendra Modi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, I was wondering what I could do to gain the rollback user level. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mdriscoll03: I took a brief look at your contributions when I checked your request, and they seemed to be okay; you need to just keep chugging along, and eventually it will make sense to give you the rollback flag. However one of the things a lot of Wikipedians are allergic to is any signs of "hat-collecting", ie looking for access to user-rights for the sake of having them. Please keep this in mind. The rollback flag is not (or should not be, at any rate) a marker of status or worth to the project; and user levels here are NOT analogous to user levels in an MMORPG, for instance. I'm not suggesting that you perceive them this way: I'm just telling you to avoid the perception, period. If you keep making constructive contributions, it will quickly become obvious that it makes sense to grant you particular user rights: and that is what you should do. Oh, and the talkback template is meant for when you have left me a message elsewhere, and wish to notify me: if you're posting here, you don't need it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for responding so quickly. I understand what you mean and I will keep on removing vandalism from Wikipedia.
@Vanamonde93: One more thing what does it mean by edits to mainspace because on my stats it says I have over 255 edits to Wikipedia.
- @Mdriscoll03: Good, that's the right approach to take. As an aside, you don't need to use the "ping" template on my talk page either: again, that's for bringing me to a page that I will not necessarily see otherwise. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. Finally, "mainspace" refers to actual articles, and "mainspace edits" are edit you make to actual articles. Every other page, that is pages with titles like "Talk: XXXX", "User Talk:YYYY", "Wikipedia:ZZZZ", and so forth, are not mainspace. You have 255 edits in total; and 76 to mainspace (also called "article space" sometimes). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- One more thing, is there a way to track your mainspace edits? Mdriscoll03 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
my talk
May be it is a good idea to semiprotect a couple of days. Will you?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- yeah, he really needs to find something else to do. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My article was deleted?
Hi, The page Skype Mingo was deleted because it was apparently advertising? I don't believe it was, and I did not advocate the app as good or bad, just stated that it existed, and said some of the features. Is there a way it can be restored? Zjjppiscool (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Law firm page deleted
You recently deleted our firm's Wikipedia page (Sutherland Asbill & Brennan / Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP) for SPAM (G11). We would like to update it to comply with Wikipedia's standards. Can you please restore the page? And apologies, I think I accidentally posted this twice. Mktgtechnews (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Anti-apartheid music
Fantastic article. Not sure I'm nearly knowledgeable enough to review it. However, did you come across the protest song Azikatali noma siyaboshwa? Was sung at Soweto, and makes a fine 4-part harmony. YouTube versions. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)