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)

Help - Austrian Empire

Hi Vanja,

please help me and rollback the recent IP edit (I already did it manually before, but it is very tiring due they cannot be undone because they are intermediary). I already asked for rollback possibility to myself, but did not have an answer yet. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism and similar (see wp:rollback). I see no vandalism in the Austrian Empire article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the IP the third time is pushing improper modifications as the Austrian Empire would be ceased in 1867, but it is not the case...then I have to bring it to the talk if noone makes it undone...(I checked again the definion, it writes that also for problematic edits, and I consider this problematic...)(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

I am not sure about that. The hat note at the top of the article says "This article is about the Habsburg realm between 1804 and 1867." Also, it seams that a long standing consensus is to limit the scope to the 1804-1867 period. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes the top of the article says that, but in the core what the IP is changing is not very recent. Maybe these differences are because the top was not updated then according to this, as well many people are not totally aware of the details and affairs of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary. Then I leave the IP edit untouched, but somehow it has to be indicated that the Austrian Empire nominally also after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise continued to exist forming the Austrian part of the joint monarchy of two separate states. P.S. (also in the infobox there were data well after 1867 and they had a really long-standing consensus (territory and population data that the IP also removed)- since more years they are present..so something has to be done to put this in order, please tell me your recommendations).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

Picture of Gwendoline Ruais

Hello Vanjagenije, this is Gwendoline Ruais. I've had a Wikipedia page for a long time with a real picture of me which was taken during a live performance. Nobody ever complained about that picture. In an attempt to bully me, someone recently replaced that picture with a horrible photo of someone who isn't me. I tried reverting the page back to my real photo but you are constantly undoing my edits. I understand image licensing is a very important issue and I thank you for being such a valuable part of the Wikipedia community, but in this case I am simply trying to put a real picture of me on the Wikipedia page about myself. Would you please be so kind as to let me do that? Thanks in advance. CaptainFrito (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@CaptainFrito: You can't use a photograph if you don't own copyrights to that photograph without obtaining permission from the copyrights holder. Wikipedia only accepts freely licensed photographs. If you are really Gwendoline Ruais, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to make a selfie and upload it. That way, you are the author and copyrights holder, and you don't need anybody's permission. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All right I have changed the picture to a selfie. I would love to prove to you that I do own the rights to this picture and that I took it myself, please let me know if that will be needed. Thanks. CaptainFrito (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Help changing my username

/* November 2018 */ Thank you Vanjagenije for approving my name change. On the page Wikipedia:Changing username, I only see an option to *request* a change. Please tell me how to actually change my username. Besides this, I do not seem to be able to edit my own talk page(!) When I go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AutoblockList, I see many autoblockings because of my ip address. How can I disassociate from these people and / or change my ip address? 77.127.63.156 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)ShemeshPhone /* November 2018 */ I figured out what happened: I got logged out, and how to re-login with my new username User-Shemesh (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)User-Shemesh

Happy Adminship

Wishing Vanjagenije a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks a lot! Vanjagenije (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi, just a question about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood. The case was closed because the IP got blocked in the meantime, but I'm not sure I see whether the case can be taken to be confirmed. Can the IP's numerous creations be speedied per G5? – Uanfala (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts at all? Do I need to ask the admin who closed the case instead? The IP has created a large number of draft articles and given that many appear nominally sourced, it's not unlikely that in six month's time they might get promoted to mainspace. If they can't be G5-ed, then I'll have to leave comments on all of them indicating they're likely to be hoaxes. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Vanjagenije. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians article

Hi Vanja,

please check the recent edits. I notify you in time, page protection would be recommended if I would be reverted, as well it would be a clear edit war from the other side. In the talk, restructuring written section, but [1] the case is clear, especially you may check it as one who interested in history. The page was protected already for one week recently when I had to make earlier a report because of edit warring, but I am afraid soon things may become disruptive on other's behalf (as such concerns you may read other sections in the talk page). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

Thank You for attention to the article, what recently concerns me as I referred other issues, what's going on recently:

Here one editor [2] with a highly questionable argumentation in advance prolongs what he will purge/delete in one way content, immediately another editor told his diasgreement and objection [3], as well concerning that the way editing process does not work like so in Wikipedia. Other also expressed a concern [4]. Despite the user after the protection expired deleted it [5], that was reverted by another user accordingly [6], after I also expressed my disagreement about the removal in the talk page and reinforced that there was no consensus for it [7].

Despite, the same user made another revert [8] by accusing the other user of "provoking edit war" and referred to third opinons expressed in the NPOV noticeboard (a 60 km long discussion that did not lead to any unform consensus, though some suggestions were considered), but the same time forgetting that without community consensus such deleteions and unlateral changes can't be done in a one way, considering the user soemtimes misuse or don not understand properly wiki guidlelines...

Then again revert [9], again [10] (here the argumentation is again misleading and dubious, - why not to expand it's relevance to a theory, why even ignore?; my addition - and ask the user to "open" a discussion the talk, although it was already discussed - as I refererred above - that there is no consensus for removal...after another editor again made a revert [11], his argumentation is dubious in the edit log since the accusation of "he removal of RS content" how would stand if it includes the whole linguistic section? (despite the user may have referred to other contents, that was no really a consensus for other changes on those sections that are still under discussion the talk pages).

After the section was again restored a bit later [12] pointing out fairly "that (important section was removed without any proper discussion", again the same revert came from the tendentious user [13], with an amazing threat "of the user being reported for disruption???", after Fakirbakir fairly expressed that "No one agreed on these changes. No consensus, article is getting ruined" [14] but again the same user reverted it [15] with again a dubious argumentation.

Seeing this, I again reinforced that there was no consensus [16] and Fakirbakir did not do anything wrong, the answer [17] - the second part in both reflects this - I even do not worth to answer, since the same nonsense argumentation I've met....this seems a disruption, not understanding or misusing WP guidelines...If I count well, already the sixth time reverting and removing something without consensus or proper discussion, an entire section...it heavily concerns me, at this point I am afraid what will come next if such can just go freely...(KIENGIR (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC))

Again...[18], but as well other issues, recent edits in the page/talk you may see user deliberately do not want to understand a follow wiki rules, more editors are already concerned, please impose discretionary sanctions on the user, nothing helped so far, it's really unbearable...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

And again [[19]]...the 8th time...please tell me, how long and how far this can go? Why there is no intervention? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33

Hi Vanja, just for sure I indicate that I reset the map voted by the RFC, that Iovaniorgovan abused through one month recurrently and continued as well just before the admin intervention. Since it is again a complicated case with a long history, just for sure I indicate that here is the background [20] (former WP:AN3 complaint, I could gather a permament link when it became archieved), the rest of the discussion on the talk pages and the just archieved RFC discussion. His really foxy and disruptive attempts were awesome, hopefully it won't happen again, and because of the current situation in the page, I better link the evidence in advance. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

Archival of discussion linked to noticeboards

Hello,

You recently reverted an archival done by an editor, on the grounds that the discussion archived was not inactive since it was linked to a noticeboard issue that is not yet closed. May I ask that you do it again?

It involves the same editor. He archived this discussion and this notice of a NPOV issue that are linked to this NPOV noticeboard issue. I did ask him to not archive the discussion.

In reply, he said I was vandalizing the page (for reverting his archival based on the argumentation above).

On another note, this user's Talk page is weird. Seems like his previous sections have gone missing, as it only shows one archive (2018/November) that doesn't contain some of the earlier sections - for example this (which can now be found only in his talk page's history). Is this normal? (to delete sections from the talk page?)Cealicuca (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca: Yes, it is "normal" to remove comments from your own talk page (see WP:BLANKING). I de-archived the discussion because it was still active. On the other hand, the discussion you mention ( (Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians/Archive_19#Restructuring_of_the_Written_sources_section) is not active, there have been no comments for more than 3 months (90 days is a standard period after which discussions are archived). So, I don't see any reason to de-archive. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Abdullah.Mhairat

As part of my tidy up following the conclusion of the SPI and the deletion of his article... well, can I just point you at a bunch of stale ducky sockyness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Advisors Group. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

... and Special:Contributions/Bjaghbeer, User talk:Bjaghbeer. Looks like they've been plugging away at this topic for 5 years and more. Cabayi (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians article

Hi, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at the latest edits made unilaterally by an editor without having reached consensus on the Talk pages. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

One question

Zdravo Vanja,

How can we edit the content behind A bullet on Kosovo related articles? For example, when a user clicks on a bullet behind Kosovo (Kosovo Judicial Council) there is a text stating that 113 countries recognize Kosovo, which is incorrect. Is there a way to edit the text with the current number stated? Mm.srb (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The text is contained in Template:Kosovo-note. The note doesn't say, thought, that 113 countries recognize Kosovo, it says that Kosovo has received formal recognition as an independent state from 113..., which is correct. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Harold and Maude Soundtrack.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Harold and Maude Soundtrack.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Tesla and Serbian Orthodox Church

Hi. I noticed that you did one revert, but there are other edits done prior to this one which were against the same consensus. Here is the consensus [21]. You will see it say: "The consensus is to keep the present text, which reads "Nikola Tesla was born ... to Serbian parents... His father, ... was an Orthodox priest.Tesla's mother['s] ... father was also an Orthodox priest,..." The other suggested version, saying the father and grandfather were Serbian Orthodox priests, would introduce ambiguity. (E.g., 1. Orthodox priests from Serbia, or 2. Serbian Orthodox priests.)...". You can see which references S. Rich put after establishing a consensus. Someone has since put the following references that are against that consensus: 15,16,17,18. All those references are cherry picked and are mentioning Serbian Orthodox Church, thus by consensus introducing ambiguity. Can you please revert to the version that was done by S. Rich? I tried to notify 2 other editors but they do not care about this consensus, and I can't do it as an IP. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Particular articles should be discussed at their talk pages. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I see the protection for IPs editing talk page has expired. I will open a change request. Thank you. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this normal to you [22] ? 89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)