User talk:Vanjagenije

Main Articles Files Userboxes Awards Tools News Deletion log Talk page Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you! Vanjagenije (talk)

Nextiva

Hi, Vanjagenije. My name is Mike and I am an employee of Nextiva, a page that you recently deleted on Wikipedia. I was informed of the deletion and offered to assist the company as I have previously edited Wikipedia and am somewhat familiar with the site. I see that you were the closing administrator and would ask that you undelete the article and restore it with a keep consensus. Despite there being delete votes at the end of the discussion, these were added after the discussion should have been closed. In addition, you say that you see no valid arguments for keeping, but I really see no valid arguments for deleting. There are many sources out there which are press releases or are in what Wikipedia may consider non-reliable sources, but there are many that are in reliable sources such as The Arizona Republic, LA. Biz, The Huffington Post, and more.[1] [2] [3] Please consider my request to undelete the article and allow it to be a Wikipedia page.--MikeBVIse (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@MikeBVIse: Sorry, but the discussion was closed (by me) as the consensus was reached for deletion. If you do not agree with my closure, you may request WP:deletion review, but I am not going to undo my action just because you asked me so. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I followed the link and I am completing the request now. Thanks for providing the information. --MikeBVIse (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Block 2602:306:25A5:8C19:587D:59F0:639A:CD0F

Block, press. --忍者ポップ (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I received a message from you that I don't understand

I received a message from you mentioning a user by the name of Brick Brick Brick, When I went online to see what was going on I found that my user name Michael K Dane has been deleted.

I have not even signed onto Wikipedia since we resolved the situation and you told me to stop using the MDTE name and use Michael K Dane and as you said there would be no problem.

Has something changed?

Michael K DaneMichael K Dane (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Michael K Dane: I did not send you any message mentioning any brick. I have no idea what you are talking about. Your user account is obviously not "deleted", since you are using it. By the way, user accounts cannot be deleted, the MediaWiki software does not allow that. 22:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rafik Yousef

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rafik Yousef. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utsavde39

I responded to your request for additional information. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. FYI, the article that was the subject of the socking was deleted, and an immediate attempt to re-create it was speedied. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You blocked me

Why did you blocked me? Do you have any problem with me? --Gushtaspp (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gushtaspp: If I blocked you, you wouldn't be able to comment here. Did I block your previous account? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did blocked me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gushtasp

I am just shocked. What was the reason to do so? __Gushtaspp (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I made new account only to contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gushtaspp (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gushtaspp: The reason is explained in the blocking notice that I left on your talk page. If you want to be unblocked, you should log in to your original account and post an unblock request, as explained in my blocking notice. I also blocked your new account because of the WP:block evasion. It is now allowed to create new accounts to circumvent the block. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

new section

Could you deal with this ? I don't have the time or patience to argue with nationalist POV pushers. 23 editor (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:OpenMind/Liu Wanchuan G2 deletion

Hey :)

I just noticed you deleted User:OpenMind/Liu Wanchuan per Zppix's G2 nom, which I was about to decline as according to WP:G2 it doesn't apply to pages in the user space? Am I interpreting this wrong?

Thanks, [stwalkerster|talk] 19:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: Yes, you are right, it was a mistake. I don't know what happened. I thought it was a WP:G6 case (Deleting userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text if the user who created the page has been inactive for at least one year), but this user is being inactive for 2 months only, so G6 does not apply neither. I am going to undelete the page. Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Frequent block evasions and continued harassment

Sorry to trouble you again. The IPs which you'd range-blocked here are constantly harassing me by shifting through multiple ISPs (pretty much from the same location). They edit from two ranges. I'll list a few samples - 213.205.251.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 213.205.251.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 213.205.251.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 82.17.26.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 82.17.27.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). After BethNaught semi-protected all my subpages, they follow my edits and keep reverting them. Is there a way to get rid of them? This might give you some idea. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: The first range is too large to block, there are many other innocent editors who would be blocked. I did block the 82.17.27.128/28 range, but that is the most we can do. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But don't we have a remedy for it? —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: None that I know. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: SPI

Regarding this SPI, is there any way you could kindly block the suspected master? Unless I am missing something (which is always possible), they appear to be unblocked. Thanks very much, GAB^Hello! 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: The master is globally locked. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks! GAB^Hello! 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

About suckpuppetry

Sir, I accept that all the accounts belong to me. I am a new user at wikipedia and I am still a child viz. -18 years old. I am sorry for all the incidents and swear that it will not be repeated next time. I am very sorry. Forgive me if U can. I am a lower secondary level student. Sorry, for that. I am very sorry. Please, forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitojhapali (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thitojhapali: OK, I understand. I blocked you for two weeks. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Hi Vanjagenije, can you take a look at WP:AIV? There's a backlog.-KH-1 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdjioasjdio

You requested that I provide some diffs for this SPI case. I have added them now, just to let you know. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnjaliWasim

Hey Vanjagenije, I choose this title (instead of mentioning the oldest account) because I found it wasn't a realname as the second one is. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivshirsatlive

Hi. I have added a couple more accounts to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivshirsatlive after you endorsed the checkuser. Do you need to review and re-endorse? I was not the editor who filed the original SPI. I was going to file one myself when I found that one was open. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq: OK, thank you. I'll take a look later. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive

Hi Vanjagenjie. I tried to add a new IP account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive because I seems to be the same user at it again. Not sure if I posted my request in the right place or posted it correctly. Would you mind taking a look at letting me know if I should post the new information somewhere else. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: You should not edit archives, I reverted your edit. You should follow the procedure explained at WP:SPI in a box titled "How to open an investigation". Vanjagenije (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. I look at the SPI page again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Recently closed Sockpuppet investigation request

Hi Vanjagenije,

You recently addressed the SI investigation I had requested. Thank you, and thanks to 0x010C, to whom you had asked hindsights from the French-Wikipedian perspective about the matter. However, I am afraid those hindsights are not absolutely factual. This could be tedious, but let me just list out a few very profound doubts about the conclusion you were enticed to draw.

Reminder-recent Sockpuppet comment

First I want to explain the background of प्रजापति, the puppet-master. He has been banned from frwiki in March 2015, after a few month of disorganising (WP:POINT) many community debates and requests, especially our Articles for deletion procedure, and for harassing several contributors. Since this date, he began to come back regularly on frwiki to continue what he was doing. In ~one year, he created more than 200 accounts to hide his actions. See fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/प्रजापति for more details.

	+	

• • Concerning Дарфбунк пакт дунфт, he came on Hégésippe Cormier's (the one who had blocked him initially) talk page here on enwiki to complain about the deletion of the article about Nathalie Martin (article which didn't met the french notability requirements). It was already a previous प्रजापति's sockpuppet who had created the article, and there were an other one who cames to complain about the deletion on frwiki (see full details here).

	+	

• • Concerning Darthbunk Pakt Dunft, the link was also obvious, even if the Check User request conclude on an undetermined result. He had the exact same behaviour and expressions as many other of the confirmed sockpuppets of प्रजापति: A few day after his registration, he re-open an Article for deletion discussion, disturb some other one, and go annoy Lomita on her talk page. Schlum, the CU who managed the request, conclude by saying that प्रजापति had clearly found a new internet access. (emphasis mine)

	+	

• :Furthermore, Darthbunk Pakt Dunft and Дарфбунк пакт дунфт are obviously linked (the second account was created just 2 weeks after the first one, the first one signed several times Дарфбунк пакт дунфт,...).(emphasis mine)

While I cannot say if indeed Дарфбунк пакт дунфт is the same person as प्रजापति, I really think it is very easy for any user with bad intentions to usurp the distinctive signature of another. The fact is the first (or only) of these users did this here: he created an account with the distinctive signature of another account. They may or not be the same. Therefore, Дарфбунк пакт дунфт and Darthbunk Pakt Dunft are not ″obviously linked″ except by the sole will of Дарфбунк пакт дунфт to imitate/usurp Darthbunk Pakt Dunft. If he wanted to harass someone as Darthbunk Pakt Dunft indeed why do so? and if he wanted to pass unnoticed why use this distinctive and already noted signature??? These users being just one does not make sense.

For the rest, not only was the Fr-WP user check inconclusive, but the checker stated that (quote): the usual access used by प्रजापति} and the access used by Darthbunk Pakt Dunft did not look alike....(See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requêtes#Demande_concernant_Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft_-_6_mars_, where an IP user notices the fact twice and insists it is a probable gross usurpation...).
As for Darthbunk Pakt Dunft having any of the the same behavior and expressions as प्रजापति, I found no trace of that ( a quick glance on their respective contributions, shows Darthbunk Pakt Dunft makes no major mistakes with verbs, while प्रजापति often does, for instance).
The only two things that are factual were immediately stressed on Fr. Wiki- were that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft recreated (he did not open an AFd TP, by the way, he just recreated the page) one of the many articles u|प्रजापति had been active on (one year before...); the second fact being thatt his/her signature (you see?...) was in cyrillic... Based on these (for me, very weak) premises, two users explained they believed he was जापति. Darthbunk Pakt Dunft said twice s/he was not. When I look at जापति's list of SI, I see he created accounts named SupremeAkeron, various named LGD, etc, that are obviously mocking/quoting others users's names, one being a sysop. I do not think anyone on Fr.WP believed they were the same person, did they? As for cyrillic, it may perhaps be nothing more than an obvious sign of interest for Russia or Ukraine (see the user's contributions).

When I read that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft ″disturbed″ and ″annoyed″ (??) two users on French Wikipedia, I also have to say, I found no trace of that. He wrote several messages on Lomita's page (to ask this sysop the code text of the page I mentioned above, if I am not mistaken), messages that Lomita answered without particularly apparent angst; is this annoying someone, on a Wiki project? and as for Schlum's conclusion (he did not manage the UC, by the way, that was another checker), it is (again) grounded on the username and on Дарфбунк пакт дунфт harassing H. Cormier, on this Wikipedia. I really do think we have a case of cross-wiki-vicious identity usurpation (in the usual meaning of the word) here; we should protect this from happening and not block the wrong person. Wikipedians trust Usercheckers and Sysops to do so. The usurpation of distinctive signature is just another type of identity usurpation we have to be wary of.

Again, the only facts I found here were that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft's signature was used by Дарфбунк пакт дунфт on Feb. 26 on the sole purpose of writing comments on Hégésippe Cormier's TP. The latter did then assume Datthbunk Pakt Dunft was the same user, again on no other ground than this (potentially obvious) signature/name usurpation (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Requête_aux_administrateurs/2016/Semaine_10#Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft_:_question_aux_ornithologues), an opinion 0x010C immediately endorsed, certainly because he trusts his fellow sysop and took his opinion at face value. An honest mistake in my idea.

My question is: Did an IP address and technical check tend to prove that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft could be the same user as Дарфбунк пакт дунфт? If no technical check has been done, I kindly trust you to examine the case again. I really do think French sysops committed an honest mistake here, and that they have been very likely played by a tricky user. Double checking before endorsing this, seems the right thing to do. Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@S.P.R. Lewitt: I reopened the case. But, I have to ask you something: how do you know about all of this? You have 5 edits here and 0 in French encyclopedia, yet you know everything about this case. Do you also use multiple accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanjagenije. I think it was the right thing to do. Your asking about me is absolutely fair. I have no other active account neither on the French nor on this Wikipedia. I used to contribute to this Wikipedia but stopped being active, although an avid reader of it. This case attracted my curiosity and I created this account to share my doubts. I was thinking I could contribute only outside of the Main space with it whenever I see something worth spending the time I spent researching this case (It took me time, I confess). My main concerns and interests are privacy, identity, protection of the users and policy issues. I believe they are the critical point of this project. I don't plan to go back contributing to the article pages, anyway. But who knows? Yours, --S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@S.P.R. Lewitt: It's nice that you want to help, but you should know that the critical point of this project is creating and maintaining articles. That is what encyclopedia is about. Everything else is secondary. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Supdiop/Profile101

Hi Vanjagenije. Should the SPIs of Supdiop (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Profile101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) be merged based on this and this? — JJMC89 (T·C) 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}}. I'm not sure, maybe he is just impersonating. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically, they look  Unrelated. Mike V • Talk 14:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Googie architecture

Thanks for your edit to Googie architecture. I agree the article was packed with images, but it's a very visual topic. While I added back the photo you removed, I also resized many of the photos, and restored the gallery to a standard smaller size (someone had made the photos huge). A few years ago I started a talk page discussion about the photos on the article. I think it's still there. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: It looks wery ugly on my screen (I have wide 1680x1050 resolution). The column of images on the right is longer than the whole article. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Can some be moved to the gallery? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Googie architecture

 – Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Administrator's Barnstar

		The Administrator's Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your administrative work here, especially in the case of YahwehSaves' SPI.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You are quite welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Looking forward to the Checkuser barnstar, Vanjagenije... That's where the big bucks are! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp are the same sockmaster

Evidence:

• Haplogroup R1b: Tirgil34[4]/Egaplaicesp[5]
• Proto-Turkic language/Urheimat: Tirgil34 (IP sock)[6]/Egaplaicesp[7]
• Identical way of marking edits: Tigil34 (IP sock)[8]/Egaplaicesp[9]
• Quoting "starling.rinet.ru" source: Tirgil34[10][11][12][13][14][15]/Egaplaicesp[16]
• Quoting "ncbi" source: Tirgil34[17][18]/Egaplaicesp[19][20][21][22][23]
• Promoting the image "Eickstedt Europe Turanid.jpg": Tirgil34 (image created by Su4kin)[24]/Egaplaicesp[25]
• Pazyryk culture/Pazyryk rug: Tirgil34[26]/Egaplaicesp[27]
• Karasuk culture/Karasuk languages: Tirgil34[28]/Egaplaicesp[29]
• Grumbates/Krumbates: Tirgil34[30]/Egaplaicesp[31]

Is it possible to merge the Egaplaicesp SPI into Tirgil34's SPI and tag Egaplaicesp's socks as belonging to Tirgil34? This would be very heplful. Krakkos (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

about xiangzi9

please no block me its my another account email only same user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iching4096 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)