User talk:Vanamonde93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Modi possible GA nom in near future?[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic or tempting fate but I've noticed that the Modi article has recently become quite stable since his election. Maybe it's an opportunity to push for GA? Would be nice to have the BJP and the current prime minister articles as GAs. I don't see any major issues currently with it but the article does need a thorough copyedit. Am I crazy? Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cowlibob, I agree that this should be a high priority for turning it into a GA. However, I'm not sure that it's ready right now. I just skimmed it again, and apart from copyediting, here are some of the issues that need fixing IMO;
1) A lot of the article is written in the vein of "X says this, Y says the opposite." This is most noticeable in the riots and development sections, but also elsewhere. Apart from the fact that this raises issues of due weight, it makes the article less readable.
2) The development section, especially, has serious issues; it's currently framed as a debate, which is also problematic, I think. Ideally, it should just describe the actual ground reality, rather than opinion; namely, that growth and Urban infrastructure have been strengthened, HDI and rural areas have suffered, privatisation has again meant growth in some areas and trouble in others, etc.
3) Beyond just very basic copy-editing, a lot of the article is in Indian colloquial English, rather than "normal" Indian English (which is very close to the British version.) Stuff like "Clean chit," "Star performer," etc, etc.
Finally, I think the fact that the article is stable is not so much because it is perfect as because it is nearly impossible to make changes to it. So here is an idea; why don't one of us copy it over into our userspace, where we can work out a lot of these issues in peace (and I'd be more than happy to do it there; its just that virtually any change to the main article ends with an edit war.) When we're happy with some sections, we'd be in a much better position to tweak the original. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, userspace is best. I've moved over a copy of the most recent one I worked on minus protection template. User:Cowlibob/Modidraft. Agreed article in terms of emphasis is small on facts and large on opinions. Cowlibob (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
All right then, let's give this a shot! Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


To add the United States as an ally in the infobox just doesn't make any sense, as the U.S supported the Taliban through Pakistan. They never outright declared their support for the Taliban. The highest degree of U.S approval for the Taliban was to simply do nothing, i.e in 1995 when the Taliban took over Herat.

Adding Pakistan as an ally in the infobox is factually correct, as it is not only indisputable that the Pakistani government supported the Taliban and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (They were one of only three countries who recognized the Taliban regime), but it has been rumored that they still support the Taliban through the ISI and Haqqani network. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87; there are sources in the article documenting US support. It included arms, training, and passive political support. If you wish to dispute this, take it up on the talk; my edit merely made the infobox consistant with the body. Also, you are currently on 4 reverts; self-revert now, else you will be reported to WP:AN3 for breaching WP:3RR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I look at the Taliban article, go to the Sub-heading 'United States' and this is what I read, which I will bold for your convenience, seeing as how you struggle to process English:
"The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools; the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women. In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia."
That's the only section in the entire article that details the U.S and the Taliban relationship pre 2001 invasion. Notice the term "support". That does not mean they allied with them. Where is all the information citing what you said "It included arms, training, and passive political support." ? If there is, then add in yourself provided you have a cited source which explicitly states so. Passive political support is not justifiable enough to make the United State an ally of the Taliban. That is exactly what I stated before "The highest degree of U.S approval for the Taliban was to simply do nothing, i.e in 1995 when the Taliban took over Herat."
The fact that you then report me for vandalism is just hilarious. I've contributed more to that article than you could hope to do within One whole life time inside your parents basement. Argue all you want, doesn't mean that you're right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
StanTheMan87, I have no intention of reporting you for vandalism; If you do not self-revert within the next few minutes, I will report you for breaching WP:3RR, ie edit-warring. I do not intend to discuss the content while you are sitting on four reverts to keep your version of the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've self-reverted back. Don't expect that U.S flag to be there for too long, hey? :) StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
StanTheMan87 about bloody time; I had already composed my AN3 report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
StanTheMan87 also, a glance at the article history shows that your contributions to the article are trivial at best; so what is that last offensive paragraph supposed to mean? Are you asking for an SPI to be filed or what? Furthermore, I suggest you read WP:NPA, and lay off the insults; it will do you no good whatsoever. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless you provide a convincing reason not to, I will be filing an SPI at some point. For what it's worth though, here's my rebuttal; the list of "Allies" is not based on any formal definition, it is based on material/political support. Nowhere near all of those organizations formally supported the Taliban, least of all Pakistan. And US material support is well documented in the article itself; see ref 9, for starters. If you wish to extend the period that I have inserted, so that it covers the 1980s, I have no issues with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Within that list of "allies", it is fact that that following organisations/movements support the Taliban or have a mutual relationship with them: The Haqqani network, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Are you serious in saying that Pakistan never "formally supported the Taliban", whereas the United States did? I'm astounded. Pakistan helped train, arm, airlift Taliban fighters, with as you said "passive political support" from the United States, which still doesn't have any justification for saying that the U.S openly allied with the Taliban. Any assistance the U.S happened to have given the Taliban came through Pakistan. It doesn't even make sense to refer to them as an "ally", even during the periods you listed 1994-1996. Unless you made a separate category labeled "puppet", than it should keep the U.S out of it. My reasons for this? The U.S saw no reason to offer support for the Taliban beyond that of Washington's own agenda. An excerpt from the article "The United States supported the Taliban through its ally in Pakistan between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal."' To be an ally, the feeling must be mutual. You can't support someone that has a fundamental dislike for you, (Taliban are mainly rural Pashtun tribesman that have an inherent dislike for all things foreign, Soviet communism and American liberalism/democracy alike) and call them an ally. That's something else entirely. Had the U.S truly been an ally of the Taliban, they would not have launched missiles on the Islamic Emirate in 1998, or have stopped all support by 1996. That's called the U.S playing God in international politics, or imperialism.
Pakistan on the other hand had no qualms over their relationship until 2001, and even in 2014 you still here of Pakistan rumored to support the Taliban to exert their influence in Afghanistan. Taliban leaders today can deny it all they want, the fact is when their movement was fledgling in 1994 during which the Hezb-e Islami under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar attacked the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus shifted support from Gulbuddin to the more successful Taliban.
To add the U.S as an ally even in the 1980's doesn't make any sense, as the Taliban was founded in 1994. The Mujahideen of the 80's were not the successors to the Taliban, as they were culturally, religiously diverse and united over the soviet invasion. In fact many leading Mujahideen fighters from that era went on to found the Northern Alliance in the 1990's which, unlike the Taliban did receive U.S public support and backing, and both had a vested interest in getting help from and helping one another. See Ahmad Shah Massoud StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, please read WP:TLDR and WP:INDENT. Second, your entire thesis is based on a certain definition of "ally," which at this point is purely OR; can you show that the list in that particular infobox is based on this definition? Where does it say that "the Taliban accepts and welcomes the support of all organizations in this list;" you see what I am getting at? I have no interest in extending the period through the 1980s; I merely mentioned it, because that would be the logical conclusion of what you were saying. I am well aware that they were founded in 1994, thank you very much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde, the accusation that the US armed and trained the Taliban is a serious one, not supported by any reliable sources I know of or mentioned in the article text. I assume you are referring to US support for Afghan rebels (some of which the US later supported against the Taliban) resisting the Soviet occupation long before the Taliban existed, but if you have sources that support your specific allegations you should present them. "Who is Responsible for the Taliban?" makes the case that the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda because they needed their help in the fight against mujahidin commanders like Ahmad Shah Masud, who actually received US support and training. (As for the notion that the US supported al Qaeda: "The agency directed around three billion dollars to the Afghan mujahideen during the war against the Soviets, but there is no evidence that any of that money went to the Afghan Arabs, nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle...The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence".) Far from being an ally, the US considered various ways to overthrow the Taliban under Clinton and Bush and finalized a plan to do so unless the Taliban met certain conditions on September 10, 2001. Incidentally, does anyone here know what support the US supposedly provided through Pakistan? I'm curious as to the language used in Rashid's book, as "support" can mean many things.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Howdy, sparring partner. I'm rather busy at the moment, but I will read through your post at some point. Really quick, though, the dispute is only about the period 1994-96, when Rashid says the US supported them. Not after that; so all that stuff about 2001 is irrelevant, I know damn well they were sworn enemies then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

El Mozote massacre picture on targeted killing page[edit]

I removed the picture because it is about a different subject than the article. According to the targeted killing article - "Targeted killing (also known as Selective assassination) is the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield." The El Mozote massacre was not selective assassination of an individual, it was a massacre. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Edward321 all right, although I disagree. The killing there was premeditated, it was outside judicial procedure, etc. Life would have been a lot easier if you had said this in your edit summary, though.
Also, I agree with the IP that even if this is not the appropriate picture, a picture of an incident of such a killing is far more useful than a picture of the means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The killing at El Mozote was premeditated, but it was not a "selective assassination" or the "premeditated killing of an individual". As noted by myself and another editor on the talk page, the picture makes perfect sense on the massacre article. Other pictures certainly could make sense on the targeted killing article. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Osama pic[edit]

That was the only picture I could find that made it clear the person was the subject of a targeted killing. If you feel it is not NPOV, I'm perfectly fine with any other picture of people killed in a targeted killing. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that picture could be a poster child (pun intended) for pro-American POV on that page. It says "GOT HIM" in 6 inch letters, for god's sake. I appreciate the effort you made to find it, but that is only further hurting the case the IP and I were making. I'll try and find something myself, but I've never been very good at finding stuff in commons. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried checking the Lillehammer affair, but found no pics. Edward321 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Do not templatize the regular. You are the one who is keen on reverting me in seconds. I have added content and reference to the article. --AmritasyaPutra 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you at AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at 25 Cents FC's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello sir. I have respond. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yallapragada Sudharshan Rao[edit]

Hi Vanamonde93, I need your help here on BLP Noticeboard. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

made page on the wrong language setting[edit]

hi! I intended to make a page on italian care the people but i made a mistake and edit in on the english one. the text was in italian but the title in english because it is an english name. so the page has been translated in english and the title in italian... i made a new page on the italian wiki, but how can i delete the wrong page? or at least attach it at the italian one with the right name? the page is care the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ela caffein (talkcontribs) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ela caffein, that is an understandable mistake to make. The easiest way to do this is to place {{Db-g7}} on the top of the page, and create the Italian page in the usual way. See WP:CSD for further details. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

India Development and Relief Fund[edit]

I thoought you might be interested to see this special issue on IDRF: [1]. Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram also seems to be a part of this network, and it is somehow related to ABISY. Uday Reddy (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, apologies, caught up elsewhere. Looks interesting; will give it a read. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism Israel section[edit]


I did explain why Israel was removed. There is a big difference between war and terror. In order for a country to be a state that supports terrorism it should support (financially or military) terror organizations. So Israel isn't "State-sponsored terrorism", regardless if you agree with it or not. Israel is at war but doesn't support private terrorist groups. So writing what somebody said with no basis or knowledge is irrelevant and makes Wikipedia look unbalanced and unscientific.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosard (talkcontribs)

@Leosard: That is not the point. All we are saying is that "King so-and-so has said so-and-so, in which he described Israel as committing state-sponsored terrorism." Removing this because of the reasons you have given would be classic original research. It is sourced; so unless you find a source which says that he didn't say that, the content stays. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

He has been appointed as the governor of Indian state of Rajasthan under the Narendra Modi government. Source- PTI[edit]

Dear Vanamonde, I was unaware about the fact that I have to name the source. In the Kalyan Singh edit page, after your mail arrived at my mail box, I re-edited the same and posted on the Wikipedia.... Please have a look. I am looking forward to hearing from you.


Hello Vanamonde93,

We are local native citizens and we work in local company of this Island and Article was made by my friend Luana B. F. This is unique and it not published anywhere - thats why there is no source.

I added below few neutral external links (we are owner of those sites), but I didnt use any of content because we want unique content on wiki and dont wanna directly involve our bussiness (we made a list of nightclubs, we didnt put just ours).

This is first time we used wiki and we want to contribute to wiki in order to help our town and ofc indirectly our bussiness.

Taliban again.[edit]

Because the sex slavery is already explained further down, and certain Taliban commanders didn't sell them just for sex, that is why "slavery" is more appropriate. Sex slavery is too exclusive. I thought I had mentioned my edit in the Human Rights Abuse section? I had two versions of the Taliban opened, so I might have combined the two edits in the one version. As for adding space, does it affect the character length of the edit if I hold down space bar? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, the only place I can find "sex slavery" is in the sentence which you changed and I reverted. If you combined edits accidentally I can understand, but I suggest you discuss the removal first. And yes, the spaces do affect the character length, so far as I am aware. Why do it, in any case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sex slavery is mentioned in the sense that individual Taliban commanders collaborated with the foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda to kidnap women in instances and sell them into some form of slavery. For example, in the article it reads "Officials from relief agencies say, the trail of many of the vanished women leads to Pakistan where they were sold to brothels or into private households to be kept as slaves" The term brothels is synonymous with some form of sexual servitude, which can be easily inferred. Another example, "The more desirable among them were selected and taken away..." they were obviously selected based on their physical traits, implying a certain basis for their slavery. There are other references in the article that point to sex slavery without actually mentioning 'sex slavery'. If you want it left, that's fine. As for the repetitive use of the space bar, that habit, and repeatedly tapping the caps lock, have just entered my daily routine using the keyboard. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Not here; discuss it on the talk. If something is sourced, then changing it to a situation where inference is required is likely to be contentious. That particular section only discusses traficking in the context of sex slavery; so there is no problem of generality, because all that first paragraph is required to do is summarize the section below. Also, indent your posts, for goodness sake. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August GOCE blitz[edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting a total of 891 words during the Guild of Copy Editors blitz! Miniapolis 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at WT:Igloo.
Message added 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The load issue has been fixed. Thanks for reporting it! -- Kangaroopowah 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for my case.[edit]

The source does not appear to mention the terms maternal or paternal. Not true you must not understand genetics well and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages

which means that

and the Y chromosome of MA-1 (R*) is basal to modern-day western (R)Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages (Q) (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) and Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. K2b is not associated with East asia, it is associated with Melanesia do you want to add that also? (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been dealt with by a more experienced editor than myself; if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes[edit]

Old data

Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.[1]

New Data

The bolded text below is an exact quote from Raghavan et al .On a wide scale 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from a population basal to modern day western Eurasians. And the western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans. A 24,000 year old sample showed a line (haplogroup R* y-dna desendend of QR y-dna ) that is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages[2] Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA. [1] (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


GOCE Requests page[edit]

Hi Vanamonde93, I see you've got two articles—Corfu Channel case and Dattatraya Parchure—marked with the {{Working}} template. Please remove one of these templates so we know which article you're currently copy-editing. You seem to have finished the second article since your last edit was at 07:54 on 25 August 2014‎ (UTC); If I don't hear from you in a day or so from my timestamp, I'll archive this as being finished. I'd normally issue a {{GOCE-ab}} template but it seems to me you've just forgotten to mark the latter article {{Done}}. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: yes, indeed, I had forgotten to mark Dattatraya Parchure with {{done}}. Thanks for the message. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! If Parchure is done with copyediting doesn't the group add {{GOCE}} on the talk page? You probably missed it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha:; yes, I missed it. I will do so now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
And Yes check.svg Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Noam Chomsky Page[edit]

Hi Can you please add to the Personal Life section for Noam Chomsky that

"Noam Chomsky married Luisa Valéria Galvão-Chomsky in Concord, Massachusetts, on March 27, 2014.

Also please add that Chomsky's latest book Master's of Mankind was released by Haymarket books in September of 2014. . Haymarket will also be reprinting twelve titles from Chomsky's backlist to include On Power and Ideology and Fateful Triangle.


Rory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suasponte3 (talkcontribs)

@Suasponte3:; Hi there. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I am not sure that the content is appropriate, based on current evidence. Basically, I am not seeing a reliable source talking about where the marriage occurred. Also, the publication probably falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I hope this makes sense. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
what about the books? Can you add those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suasponte3 (talkcontribs) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Suasponte3:; It was the books I was referring to when I mentioned WP:NOTNEWS. He has published hundreds of books; why do these deserve mention? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


I was just messing around to test how wikipedia works. Sorry for troubles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Praveen Togadia dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined[edit]

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the Praveen Togadia dispute, concluding that other dispute resolution processes should be attempted first. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes related to the article of Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

The reason I've reverted your edit under See also section, because you have used wrong format i.e. Portal bar|Conservatism|India|Politics by using that format we can't see the portal box under see also in the article it goes blank. Correct format to show portal box is using Portal|Conservatism|India|Politics. HemmyHighlander 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemmyHighlander (talkcontribs)

@HemmyHighlander:; thanks, fixed. The bar is far more elegant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the portal now. Why did you change that? Can you explain? It has gone blank. HemmyHighlander 20:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I can see it just fine. You must be having browser issues. You could ask somebody more experienced with these issues than myself. Tell me, can you see the portals here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Greetings! My sincerest apologies sir. I wasn't aware of that. What should I do for what I've written be included, sir? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonekekek (talkcontribs) 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bonekekek, greetings. Everybody makes mistakes to begin with, and I'm glad that you want to learn from yours. What you need to do, is to find reliable sources that support the content you want to add, and then cite them. Hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Thank you very much sir! What if there are no references at all, sir? I'm trying to make this the only reference if possible. Thank you very much!


Sir/Ma'am, with all due respect, I would like to correct the date of establishment of PNPA stated in your secound sentence, first paragraph. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonekekek (talkcontribs) 04:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


you just sent a 'warning' with regard to a small yet important addition to your albeit vague page persecution of Muslims. Currently making a vast research, and despite many Wikipedia's errors, the additions made constitute Facts (which appear also in Wikipedia itself, but in other sections!) This was a small but important piece of information (please check details on Wikipedia), which you call editing or worse 'vandalism' What's going on with Wikipedia ? Care to explain Vanamonde93 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31 pm, Today (UTC−5)

IP, you inserted the phrase "mentally unstable" without a source, to a contentious page. Of course this looks like vandalism. If you don't want to be reverted again, simply use a reliable source for your text. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:43 pm, Today (UTC−5)
sorry but unsure what you mean by "use reliable source" ? quote?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
First, please don't blank the first part of the conversation. Second, I did explain, or rather, I linked you to an explanation. this link explains what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)