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)

Error in a SP report I filed

I filed a report for "janagewen", it should have been "Janagewen". And I see I'm not supposed to move it. So, I annoy a clerk. Sorry. Jeh (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Árva county

Dear Vanjagenije, as a subject of history, I kindly ask your help/attendance again. I see a possibly vandalizing atempt under a the pretext of WP:English WP:naming conventions, although having a long experience of contemporary naming conventions met with countles articles we never met usually such conflict that was now provocated and it rarely happened in the past by some anonimus or other user's with a clear anti-Hungarian aim. Recently almost all Hungarian names were deleted that is heavily outreagous regarding an article that is about a historical Hungarian comitatus, etc. My negotiation attempts did hot have a result yet, the subject initiated two reverts so I used the article talk page I kindly ask you to read through, and I've just reset the former state of the article by adding more contenporary names as a proposal, but I am afraid the subject will again continue with reverts and I want ot avoid to be pulled again in a provocation, in case I ask you to protect the article in that form when Hungarian names are also present and persuade the subject for building a new consensus in the talk page instead of continous reverting. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I'm glad to see that you two engaged in talk page discussion, I will be watching it and comment if needed. The conditions for wp:full protection are not met. You should continue discussing and try to reach wp:consensus. I also have to tell you that you should stop calling other users "anti-Hungarian" whenever they do not agree with you. You have to always WP:assume good faith. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:AGF. Since with current user we engaged an other talk page near a month, and also in other pages/cases in his manifestations always negative came up regarding Hungary realated issues, I have great concerns, anyway as you see I am tired that instead of quality editing and I have to face with such cases. Thank you for your attendance! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC))

ask question

Dear Vanjadenije, may I keep on editing? and can you help me with the page which is considered for deletion? because i have evaluated the references and the author is notable. can you visit please? thank you. Jacob20162016 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jacob20162016: Whether the subject is notable or not will be decided by the deletion discussion, not by you. Article may be edited during the discussion, there is no provision against that. I just have to note that you will probably be blocked soon for WP:meatpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

but why? Jacob20162016 (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jacob20162016: Because you teamed up with several other people to !vote the same way at the deletion discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I really did not how should I prove it? Jacob20162016 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC) that is really unfair. So can I register another name? or ID? but it might happen again. believe me I really did not do it. I helped. but in return blocking me ! till when will I found out I am blocked or not?Jacob20162016 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jacob20162016: No. If you are blocked, that means that you (as a person) are blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:Block evasion is not allowed. Creating new accounts will only make it worse. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading back over this case, I realized that I failed to mention that not only do the accounts share the same IP, they are also the only three accounts using that address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

SPI archive

I see that you archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one, but there doesn't seem to be a link from there to the archive page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: You should WP:purge the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DEBORAH1111

Looking at this makes me think, at best, this individual doesn't grasp our policies and conventions. You know more about the situation than I, so I'll stay out of the way while you take whatever action(s) you deem necessary. You'd probably not like the solution I'm considering. Regards, Tiderolls 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Tide rolls: And what is that solution that you are considering? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Barring some demonstration of competence, blocks all around. Tiderolls 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Tide rolls: I blocked several accounts few days ago, and other seam inactive. I don't see any point in blocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have no issue with your actions; including the block today re: the diff I posted. Tiderolls 21:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags

Hey there, over the last day or so I've noticed you re-tagging some of the sock accounts I've already tagged, even though you're not actually changing the information (e.g. [1]). Am I doing something wrong? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: No, it's probably because I'm using the SPI helper script. It's easier to just tag them all then to go through all the socks and tag only those that are not already tagged. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was probably something like that. The script doesn't seem to be working for me, I'll look into it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe

You may be interested in this discussion regarding a user you have unblocked. Sentence from their edit "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012, when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO." and from source "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012, when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Vanjagenije, thank you for doing all you could to support with the situation I found myself in. Your guidance on how to navigate Wikipedia policies and on how to contact the Arbitration Committee is greatly appreciated. Thankfully, the issue was resolved. Sthubbar (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping a note

Hope this is okay! :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Grb opštine Zvečan

Samo da ti kažem da je autor grba optšine Zvečan Radosav Janićijević.Sonioa ^✉ 14:00, 26 October 2016(UTC)

LOCUMI LABS

Hi, many thanks for reviewing my page creation about LOCUMI LABS. It is actually a very interesting and striving German startup which has gained significant media attention over the last two years. Would love to see it on wikipedia. Please advise why you think it is not interesting enough or what I have to do in order for it to satisfy wikipedia requirements. Many thanks, Darimana (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darimana: Whether the article is interesting or not is of no importance. It was speedily deleted under the WP:A7 criteria because there was no explanation of significance. You have to understand Wikipedia's WP:Notability policy. Only subjects that are notable are allowed to have articles in Wikipedia. Notability is established by citing reliable independent sources (see: WP:42). Your article did not cite any source. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I understand. There were plenty of sources and references in the first post I published. They were amended by the first reviewer. Shall I repost it with the references again for your review? Thanks, Daniel

@Darimana: Hm... I'm not sure that any of those "sources" were wp:reliable wp:independent sources. Some of the sources cited do not mention Locumi Labs at all. Some are self-published or paid reviews, so are not independent. If you want, I can un-delete the article and move it to the WP:drafts namespace, so that you can work on it. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:05, 2 November 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) 04:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Block user

Can you block 200.58.81.27? He's reverting a edit multiple times. GXXF T • C 18:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible Undertrialryryr sock

FYI: [2][3]

Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet

Please unblock me or w/e it is you've done. All I did was help a friend edit a page because he needed help. I'll let him know (Debeat) to sign his comment as well so that you can see we have different IP's. Thank you. 86.165.14.166 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC) GCTRL

You should log in to your account and make an unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nyitra County

Hi,

unfortunately a very similar issue is raising in this article. The same subject entered with an edit warring with two other users, after the warning the page was restored and a discussion was started a long time ago, that is still ongoing. I joined in the discussion later. Despite the discussion/resolution did not end, the subject with misleading comment on edit logs again overriden with unconsensused and improper content the article, I restored it and asked him not to such acts by an ongoing discussion/resolution in the talk page. Despite he again overridden in with pretext by referencing on something that would just partially cover the topic but here also there are special ceses that were demonstrated also by other users in the talk page, despite the subject harmed the second time WP:BRD process and WP:CONSENSUS that is totally improper in an ongoing discussion because of edit warring. Please assess and protect this article to avoid such unfortunate happenings. I am very sorry some users always seek conflict instead of calm resolution. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

Here is the existing consensus. Unfortunately, it is not respected and non-Hungarian names are repeatedly removed.

Maybe, User:Elonka who worked hard to achieve this consensus can also help us. Ditinili (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not think Vanjagenije cannot distuinguish between consensus of some conventions in some cases or consensus regarding a current page or a current section or a current edit or consensus building. As well, he might see in the talk page why the special cases we are discussing are different also regarding other distractions that is under discussion. Anyway this consensus is kept where applicable, moreover you are adding improper name also, on the other hand not even Hungarian names are present strictly, since only the reference on the pages are listed, moreover it is an article in a clear Hungarian context. You think these won't be noticed? You don't respected these above and the fact that 4 persons involved in the current issue has to agree to achieve consensus on the current section.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

I will not make any assumptions who can distinguish what. Here is the existing consensus. Ditinili (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You can again act like you don't understand, but please do not think others do not realize what you are doing.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

May I ask you "what am I doing"? --Ditinili (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You were told - it was written more times - no need to repeat and to generate more stress.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

I am for transparent communication. What do you mean exactly? Ditinili (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's not flood this userpage. Read back what I have written there is nothing more to say, it is clear about the past approx. 3 months' history.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

Do you mean something related to I also have to tell you that you should stop calling other users "anti-Hungarian" whenever they do not agree with you? Ditinili (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The average problem of your comprehension. Read back (again): Let's not flood this userpage. Read back what I have written there is nothing more to say, it is clear about the past approx. 3 months' history.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

No comment.Ditinili (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Finally!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC))

Universidad Empresarial website

Dear Vanjagenije Please be informed that NIC.cr (Which runs the Academia Nacional), only make available .ac.cr domains for Universities listed by the CONESUP. So no one except the real University can registered such ac.cr domain (AC stands for academies, on University levels) since Costa Rica does not use dot edu extension. Take as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidad_San_Juan_de_la_Cruz You may contact www.nic.cr and get an official reply if you are not sure.Taesulkim (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: As the one who introduces new content, it is your duty to establish consensus for that edit. Which web site belongs to the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica has been debated for long time (see Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica, and especially the archives). I see that you left a message on the said talk page, albeit in a section titled "Request total deletion of the article", to which it has no connection. In that comment, you did not provide any reliable source to prove that the ac.cr domain belongs to the university. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cr Quote ac.cr:Entidades académicas (Restringido). Restringido its means RESTRICTED. Ac.CR its only available, after NIC.CR proves its a University approbed by the CONESUP (Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior)Taesulkim (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica § University website

Dear Vanjagenije I found this http://unesco.vg/whed/detail_institution.php?id=17738 Thats a UNESCO WHED listing for www.unem.edu.pl I hope this will help Taesulkim (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije Can you please leave some feedback on the Talk page, if you agree to display either www.unem.edu.pl (As listed on UNESCO WHED) or www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr since none is either agree or disagree in the talk page. Also notice the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PolandMEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PolandMEC as been concluded. Sorry for any wrong approach. I do not intend to be unpolite. Taesulkim (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

SimonTrew

Hi Vanjagenije, I wonder if you could look into a matter that has me puzzled. On 5 October 2016 User: SimonTrew left me a garbled message that I cannot make any heads or tails of. This was the only time he posted on my talkpage and I thought at the time it was out of character. I only know that SimonTrew was heavily involved in wp:RfD, because he was involved in deletions of redirects that I created.

I don’t understand why SimonTrew has disappeared so suddenly. I don’t know if ADMINs have more insights into these matters, but thought I would give it a try. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: I don't know what that message is about. I also don't know how I can help you and what is my connection to the whole case. The only thing I could do is to look into SimonTrew's deleted user page. On 1 June 2016, an IP user (apparently SimonTrew himself) left a long message saying that he is "retiring". The explanation is long and pretty messed up. I only understood that it has something to do with deleting Neelix redirects. Several days later, SimonTrew account was blocked by Floquenbeam for "making legal threats". SimonTrew then used the same IP to request unblock ([4]). The account was unblocked on 14 September by the same admin (block log). That's all I know. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

(indenting messed up, I'm actually answering Ottawahitech) Simon occasionally has trouble with typing; not sure the reason, and it's none of my business, but it usually goes away. He was just thanking you for thanking him for some edit he made (you thanked him for something on 10/5), and also appears to be complaining about the difficulty he is having typing that day.

From his talk page it appears he's suffered a loss in his family, which seems to explain his recent hiatus from WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed comments from Aaron Janagewen

Dear Vanja, I would like to ask why you have removed the comments from Aaron Janagewen in the discussion I have started here? Best regards, PatrikN (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@PatrikN: Because indefinitely blocked users (User:Janagewen) are not allowed to comment in discussions. That is what we call WP:block evasion. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the information. I was just wondering and now I also learned some more about Wikipedia :-) Have a nice day! /PatrikN (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Murica

A redirect that you edited in the past has come up for WP:RFD. If you wish to participate in the discussion, then please do so. Thank you. 71.163.180.2 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

@Vanjagenije Just to let you know a Dispute resolution noticeboard has been opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.23Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources Taesulkim (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:X86

Hi Vanjagenije, in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen/Archive, maybe you can have a quick look at the IP I just blocked, and maybe at the history of Draft:J Barry Grenga. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I don't know. The IP does not belong to ranges used by Janagewen. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Vanjagenije, they started a thread on my talk page--it's fascinating and mysterious; he thanks "software HideMyIP" and you'll see a few more IPs from all over the place in the history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

puzzled about something...

Shouldn't Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vexillographer have a link to the Archive->Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vexillographer/Archive like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChanceTrahan? I can't get at the Archive from the original page... Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: The page needs to be wp:purged. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

PURGE it! Ok, thanks. I was looking at the edit history and stuff and it didn't seem quite right, I'll keep that in mind for next time. Heh, will wait - tincture of time and all that. Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Taesulkim (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

One year ago today...

Wishing Vanjagenije a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Vanjagenije,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)