User talk:Vanamonde93

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


Hello, I registered an account... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitpax (talkcontribs) 10:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proof that Chomsky is Married[edit]

Hi Vanamonde93 can you update the Chomsky page with this source?

Suasponte3 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Suasponte3, I believe it's been dealt with now. If you have further concerns please let me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 00:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bring Him Back Home (Nelson Mandela), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomorrow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I thank you for your edit on Musa al-Kadhim which was also among my works. I am still working on Jafar al-Sadiq, in the meanwhile, however, you could nominate any of the following (except for the first one which someone is editing it right now) as Good Article if you think they are more ready for the nomination. I thank you again.

Hadi (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadi, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and you are welcome to my help any time. However, I'm not certain that most of these are ready for a GA (I haven't looked closely at all of them yet) for a couple of reasons. First, they could all use copy-editing, but that can be easily fixed. The more serious issue with an article like Musa al-Khadim is that it relies too far on quotations, with insufficient interpretation from the authors of the source rather than the subject of the source. It is useful to know what al-Khadim's contemporaries said about him, but we primarily need to know what the scholars say, and modern scholars for preference (I don't know the ins and outs of which scholars are acceptable, because it's not my topic area). Furthermore, a lot of the article is in the form "it was narrated by so-and-so.." from what I remember of my classes on Arabic literature, this sort of information is considered necessary in Arabic literature, but on Wikipedia such references add very little unless we know why that person's opinion matters. Does that make sense? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bring Him Back Home (Nelson Mandela)[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


your article on Kashmir Is so biased in favour of india.plz be neutral when writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian civil war[edit]

For the record [1], please note that what I created was a link to a dab page, however, an editor with a battleground mentality three times reverted the dab back into a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter, that would make sense. Thanks for letting me know. Apologies for misunderstanding your intentions; since you are aware of the issue, I will let you sort it out, because I am not actually well versed in that topic area. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. For the time being, I am not going to take action, but the page remains on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for José Manuel Fortuny[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Salvadoran civil war[edit]

"It also included the deliberate terrorizing and targeting of civilians by death squads, the recruitment of child soldiers, and other violations of human rights, mostly by the military." The last tidbit of information "mostly by the military" is a slightly unprofessional biased, unproven assumption. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. And your claim, that my removal of this bit is nonconstructive is you hiding from basic constructive criticism. As I am very capable of understanding that you are possibly wearing politics on your sleeve in adding to an article that is supposed to simply state the facts. This is an encyclopedia. Hearsay does not belong in encyclopedias. If something is a known fact, you have to present some solid proof. I've never heard of a one-sided child-soldier argument except from people who are twisting things to make the other side seem more villainous, when in fact both sides are guilty of destruction when there are innocent casualties on both sides of the coin in regards to these types of conflicts. How do I know this? I'm a legitimate historian who has thoroughly investigated this matter in real books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is well-known that the Salvadoran military had a poorer human rights record than the rebels did. You might be misreading the sentence slightly; the "mostly by the military" refers to the entire previous sentence, not the child soldiers. And it is solidly sourced; the source is written by one prominent scholar, in a book edited by two others, published by Duke university. All three scholars are major figures in Latin American Political history scholarship. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)