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)

SPI case protection

Could you restore protection, see also: [1], thanks! I saw this page unprotected after you merged. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: How do you know the page is "unprotected"? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please compare [2] with [3], thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Is seams that you are right. Yet, the protection log lists the page as semi-protected. Weird. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but this edit summary should be also hidden: [4] . Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem in Azerbaijan National Aerospace Agency and Azercosmos

Hi, Vanjagenije. The entities shown above are different ones. Azercosmos is Open Joint Stock Company whereas Azerbaijani National Aerospace Agency is just an agency under the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Azerbaijan. When we write Azercosmos it redirects us to Azerbaijani National Aerospace Agency. Furthermore, there are a lot of serious mistakes at the wiki page of Azerbaijan National Aerospace Agency. I kindly ask you to let me edit both articles. The real information about Azercosmos is on [5]--ZahraGasim (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@ZahraGasim: Nobody prevents you from editing, you don't need my (or anyone's) permission. But, there are no "both articles". There is currently only one article, titled "Azerbaijan National Aerospace Agency". The other one ("Azercosmos") is just a redirect, no article. You can create that article using wp:reliable sources. The page you provided ([6]) is not a reliable sources, as it is a web page of Azercosmos (reliable sources need to be wp:independent). By the way are you somehow connected to Azercosmos, i.e. do you have wp:conflict of interest? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

question

Hi, I see your name come up in a lot of sock puppet investigations. I'm not really familiar with the whole SPI process. Anyway, I believe an editor was blocked, evaded that block by posting a rant at MILHIST (likely the project covering the article he was blocked for doing something to). His post was removed, then another IP user (same ISP, same small town, pop. 4320) popped up in defence of the first IP. He then went on a destructive bent that got the 2nd IP blocked. I'm wondering what is the best way of reporting these IP addresses as (likely) being the same person, and possibly finding which account they (likely) had that was blocked in the first place to start all this? (the details are all in a 3RRNB report found here. If you could take a look and offer any advice as to what steps I could (or should) take, if any, that would be appreciated. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 23:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: If I understand correctly, all accounts and IPs mentioned are now blocked and there is no more disruption. Why would we make any investigation if there is no disruption? What would we accomplish with that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No, only one of the two IP accounts has been blocked, 2601.x, the 2nd one. He has since jumped back to 73.x, the first IP account, with more rage against the machine posts, both at the 3RRNB report and 2601.x's talk page... after the 2601.x account was blocked, so despite this block (likely his second) he is still continuing. We still haven't identified what original account he was using that was blocked to begin with that set of all these rants via these 2 IP accounts. This is clear sock puppetry, and when you look at the first rant that started it all, it is also likely block or ban evasion as well. - ^theWOLFchild 14:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Added note: I don't know if you had a look at the 3RRNB report or not, but would it help is I wrote out a report with all the diffs to demonstrate the socking and continued disruption? Then you could let me know how to go about filing it. I guess this would an SPI case? (like I said, I'm not at all familiar with this process, but would like to learn). Thanks again - ^theWOLFchild 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: How do you know there is any registered account involved? And, even if there was, how do you think we can find it? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I take it you didn't read the 3RRNB report then. This all began with this post to the MILHIST talk page by someone using the 73.x account. He's clearly upset about a block, it seems likely (to me at least) that either his reg'd account or another IP he was using had just been blocked, and he then used this IP to rail about it at MILHIST, (the project likely covering whatever page he was editing that lead to the block). Can I prove that right now? No. That's what I though the purpose of the sock investigations were for. Anyway, the MILHIST post was removed, and he went on a rant about it on several pages, now using the 2601.x account. I think it's clear that 73.x and 2601.x are the same person, but only 2601.x has been blocked so far, and only for 72 hours for edit warring on my talk page. There is definite socking occurring, 2 accounts have been identified and I believe there is possibly a third account, the original one. I just wanted to know the best was to report all this. I thought you would be able to tell me because I see your name attached to a lot of these investigation pages. So can you help me? - ^theWOLFchild 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I blocked the other IP, as I believe it belong to the same person. I think you do not understand the purpose of WP:SPI. The purpose of sockpuppet investigations is to stop ongoing disruptive behavior. When there is no disruption, there is nothing to investigate. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that I first asked you about this last night (about 12 hours ago) when he was actively disrupting the project on several pages using at least 2 different accounts, and continued after my first post here. And if he is evading a block, then that block should certainly be lengthened, if not turned indef. Anyway, that said, perhaps you can offer a suggested course of action for me to take the next time I come across something like this actively taking place? Is there a board I can file a report to, similar to 3RRNB or AIV? (like I said, I am not at all familiar with SPI) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I don't know what you mean when you say that the block should be turned indef. If you mean the presumed original account's block, then I agree, but we don't know if such account even exists. If you mean the IPs' block, then no. IPs are almost never indeffed, because they might be dynamic or they might belong to schools or similar. Block evasion should be reported at WP:SPI. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the likely, but currently unknown, original blocked account, and if it is a registered account, of course. I do know that IPs aren't indef'd. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi I do not know how to leave a message. The page Simone_Butler has been targeted by trolls most recently by the name of Lyerlyerpantsonfier. this user along with ilbogod have been trying to disrupt the page and write derogatory comments in their edits. Trolling is a criminal offence and if need be the police will be notified of the ip addresses. I do not wish for a page deletion, but to stop these trolls adding information to the page and deleting links for no reason. Deleting the page will only result in the trolls being able to set up a fake page . please help to stop this harassment and vandalism. Template:Lyerlyerpantsonfieruw-hblock

Inappropriate violation about sock puppetry

Hello, I am Rectify 54. I would suggest to erase two of my abusing editing archive, one for 11 September 2016 and 19 March 2017. We had enough with accessing IP address for violation edit case. 21:22, 7 February 2018 (talk) (UTC)

@Rectify 54: I don't understand the meaning of "We had enough with accessing IP address for violation edit case". Clarify, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you remove two of my abused editing records, please. I do not want to see the past ones. If strangers find out about it, they could steal my identity and account.

No, I'm afraid. We need that data to prevent future abuse. You were abusing IPs as recently as last month. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Before you and I use the data to erase my evidence of sock puppet, let me tell you. I am learning my lesson not to edit any articles with IP address, so I promise all users I will not make future abuse.

Since you needed three lessons to learn, there is distinct possibility that you will need more lessons. Therefore, we are not going to delete anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Real News Update

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Real News Update. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

i Know they are i have been in 3 countries i do doctors without boarders the do both eastern and western rite liturgy like ROCOR Antioch And Alexader

I seen them first hand that's why I add them and was asking for help I knoe for a fact they are in Nigeria My Home Town Davao City Philippines and Madagascar Africa I was just trying to make it right they broke away from the greek orthodox church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinealeria (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Justinealeria: I believe you, but Wikipedia needs WP:reliable sources. There are lot of thing that are real , but not all of them are WP:notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

i understand now thank you for your help i really thank you i dont know how this works

thank you so much for you input I really mean it can you give me advice o what to do and how this works — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinealeria (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bozo-Vreco-screenshot.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bozo-Vreco-screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Reg deletion of jaiganesha.jpg

Sharan (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Hi there,

Just received an alert regarding the deletion of the pic attached to the page 'Kuldeep M. Pai. This is a screenshot of one of Kuldeep Pai's videos... attached it as it was relevant to the content. If this is deemed irrelevant, I am happy to replace it with a new picture (which is my own work), in lieu of the existing one. Please advise me if I can go ahead and replace the picture?

Also, if I may ask, the main profile picture of Kuldeep Pai which is my own work, (Kuldeep pai.jpg) is not visible on the page Kuldeep M.Pai. Can you advise me on that as well, please? Should I reload this again? Why am I not able to view his profile picture? Sharan (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sharan Sharan (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@SHARANYABHARATHWAJ: You uploaded the file (File:Jai ganesha.jpg) to Wikimedia Commons. Commons only accepts files that are either in the public domain or those that are freely licensed (see Commons:Commons:Licensing). Screenshot of a movie is not freely licenses, and you are not the author (although you falsely claimed it to be your "own work"). So, it can't be uploaded to Commons. Regarding your other question, you are free to add image to the article. See Help:Pictures for more info. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Mhdsuhail123 has returned with the new a/c Muhammed.suhail. Promoting and advocating Mammootty films' box office as usual and the similar username. --Let There Be Sunshine 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I really like your username! Thegooduser talk 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Guide me

Hello Vanjagenije, I am new growing up wikipedian. Please Guide me How to use, what are restriction, and so on. Hope I will grow up with your support. Please reply back LuckyRacerNP (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@LuckyRacerNP: I left you a welcome message at your user talk page. It contains links to all important pages that are helpful for understanding Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me if you need some clarification. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Numrec

Hi. The main article speaks after this revert that 113 countries recognize the Kosovo, thats incorrect. --Elmedinfeta (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Elmedinfeta: Well, what exactly is wrong? There are 113 UN member states on the list that recognized Kosovo at some point. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There are 112 (58%) of 193 states that recognize Kosovo. One country has the recognition withdrawn and 80 countries don‘t recognize Kosovo. That doesn‘t make sense. For a example: Look at the german vision. --Elmedinfeta (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The logic is that 113 states have recognized Kosovo at some point. Maybe it can be formulated differently, I agree, but it isn't incorrect. I advice you to use the article talk page to gather consensus for new formulation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI mergers needed

Hello. Can you please help out with this SPI merge request (it's marked under "Clerk Assistance Requested")? The SPI cases in question have been left unmaintained for months, and the CU data in the cases pretty much indicate that all of the accounts belong to the same sockmaster. It's a mess, from what I can see, and no one's taken it up so far. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Orthodoxy RM

You recently participated in an AfD discussion for the Anti-Orthodoxy article here. A request to move (retitle) that article is currently under discussion here if you'd care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  05:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Aleksa

Hi,

I noticed that you blocked Surtsicna recently for edit warring at Aleksa Šantić.

I am afraid this editor continued with their disruptive behavior right after the block expired:

1. The first edit of this editor after the block expired was to continue right where they stopped. To push their POV at the same article (diff)
2. They based their edits on false arguments like (consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb"(diff)) although it was quite obvious that they misinterpeted direct opposition of another editor as support and consensus.
3. When I pointed to this misinterpretation three times (diff), (diff) and (diff) they presistently pretended that direct opposition to their position was lack of opposition (diff) and (diff).
4. Only when I pointed to this misinterpretation for the fourth time (diff), Surtsicna gave up their misinterpretations refusing to acknowledge the issue with their editing and consensus reached by all other editors.
5. Surtsiscna also refused to acknowledge the issue with their editing when they got themself blocked claiming I did not edit war.... I did not break any rule.... (diff).
6. In the absence of valid arguments they used ridicule fallacy trying to confront valid objections of other editors grounded in wikipedia policies and guidelines, comparing the case of Aleksa Šantić who is dead for almost a century with Barrack Obama and Jenifer Lopez (diff). To illustrate irrationality of Surtsicna's attempt to impose their "Yugoslav" POV on Aleksa Santic article I will point to multiple articles they created themselves (ie Marija Kon, Berta Bergman,...) without respecting the same POV they desperatelly trying to push on Santic article.

I don't know the reason for their behavior. I usually find their edits quite constructive most of the time. From some reason in case of Aleksa Santic I am afraid their edits are not constructive. The worst thing is that they persistently refuse to acknowledge the issue with their edits. Taking in consideration above written I am afraid that somebody who has appropriate tools should prevent them from continuing their disruptive behavior. Can you please advise how to resolve issues with their editing?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: I'm not sure what you want me to do. You say you want me to prevent them from continuing their disruptive behavior, but there have been no edits on the Aleksa Šantić article for 8 days. What disruptive behavior? You obviously have a WP:content dispute and you should resolve it using WP:Dispute resolution methods. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am stunned by your lack of good faith, Antidiskriminator. I did not expect you, of all users, to interpret a simple compliance with a non-controversial guideline as an anti-Serb conspiracy. Neither Marija Kon nor Berta Bergman are defined by their ethnicity, i.e. as Jews, which is what all this is about. Are you so convinced that I am on an anti-Serb or pro-Yugoslav crusade that you did not notice? Better examples of my "Yugoslav POV pushing" would be edits at Stjepan Radić, Džemal Bijedić, Hamdija Pozderac, Josip Vancaš, etc. What exactly is so disruptive about complying with MOS:BIO? Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want you to do anything. I asked you for your opinion. Thank you for presenting your opinion.

Surtsicna I did write word Serb nor anything like anti-Serb conspiracy in my above comment. Your comment is straw man and flag vawing fallacy and another blatant misinterpretation of other editors' comments. I clearly explained what is what I find disruptive: your apparent refusal to accept consensus reached by all othere editors at Aleksa Santic talkpage. This will be my last comment in this discussion with you here. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)