Jump to content

User talk:Vanjagenije

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a SPI clerk.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.101.85.184 (talk) at 16:51, 9 September 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Vanjagenije User:Vanjagenije/Articles User:Vanjagenije/Files User:Vanjagenije/Userboxes User:Vanjagenije/Awards User:Vanjagenije/Tools User talk:Vanjagenije/News User:Vanjagenije/Deletion log 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)

DJ Sizzle Page Deletion

Greetings!

I was told you deleted the DJ Sizzle page. I'm trying to recover all the information that was put on the page.. How can I do that? DMcCray1 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DMcCray1: I moved it to your user space, it's here: User:DMcCray1/DJ Sizzle. If you improve the article, you can use the WP:AfC process. Please, do not move it back to the main namespace because it will be deleted again. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too hasty

This block was too hasty, and in my opinion, a mistake. The newbie editor should have been given a chance to change his or her username before rushing in to block. The newbie editor had already been given instructions on how to do this, reinforced by the note appended to my welcome message. New editors should be encouraged, not blocked. If the editor had persisted editing without changing username, then that would have been the correct time to block.

Neither do the newbie's edits constitute "spam" in my opinion. Typical clumsy newbie edits, yes, but not spam, since the info he or she added correctly belongs in those two articles. It should have been tidied up, not reverted.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Coincidence - I see we both opened our accounts on the same date! --NSH001 (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @NSH001: The editor continued to edit after they were issued a warning. To quote your words, then that would have been the correct time to block. And, adding link to your own web site is spam by definition [1][2][3]. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One edit! Come on, is that really enough to justify a block? Especially since it is possible that the editor may have already been composing that edit at the time the warning was issued, and wouldn't have seen it until he or she pressed "save". Note also that he or she ceased editing completely after I reinforced the warning, which is what matters in the current situation. Even vandals don't get blocked until they've received several warnings. As for adding links, that is just a typical clumsy newbie mistake, not an attempt at "spam". Admins need to show an appreciation for the problems faced by newbie editors. It is not reasonable to expect brand-new editors to be familiar with all wiki rules, especially one who is obviously struggling to work out the technical complexities of wiki editing. --NSH001 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Oops, sorry, I misread the time stamps, it was more than one edit. But I still think it right to note that the editor had ceased editing after I reinforced the warning. --NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NSH001: User made 10 edits after you 331dot left them the warning. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user made NO edits after I reinforced the warning (11:34), user's latest edit was at 10:00. --NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further from a newbie's perspective (which I am as guilty as you are of not doing), the first warning doesn't actually say specifically "stop editing until you've changed your username". Not surprising that the newbie continues editing ... --NSH001 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Milla Stadium

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Milla Stadium. Class455 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

UAA

Greetings, Vanja. I've observed that you help out a lot at UAA, identifying usernames that are not blatant violations, should be discussed with the user etc. I would appreciate it if you could give me some advice on how to know whether a username is a blatant violation or not, or what to do when I come to a username that looks a bit suspicious.

For example, here are some usernames I've thought of. Which ones would you say would be blatant, not blatant, need to be discussed with the user, wait until the user edits etc.?

  • TheLifeOfDavidBowie
  • TheRealBenAffleck
  • Sexxboobs703
  • TheWikipediaDeveloper
  • rnkgnlbgjmspgkdjsgkiwgjpkagjrkhjdskgjdskb*
  • XYZMusicOfficial
  • Queer642
  • RVVBOT
  • OddBot Even
  • TwasBrilligAndTheSlithyTovesDidGyreAndGimbleInTheWabe*
  • ABCDEElementary
  • AssAsssAsssss
  • UsainBolt95094
  • Lolyoloswag333

*Exceed 40 characters

Хвала вам! Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message as a courtesy 15:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: You should read our WP:Username policy to learn what usernames are permitted. For example, TheLifeOfDavidBowie is allowed since Bowie is (unfortunately) dead. Whether we block a user outright or try to discuss the problem depends not just on the username, but also on his behavior. For example, if a user named XYZMusicOfficial creates promotional article about a company called "XYZ Music", I block them. But, if the same user makes useful edits (for example, copy editing), then I leave a notice on their talk page that they need to change their username. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Károlyi Article - Disruptive editing

Hi, I read carefully the WP:Disruptive editing page and as a first step I think the most proper is to ask Administrator help at once. Since approx. a week, suspicious IP Adresses continously overriding a long time ago existing CONSENSUS on the subject's birthplace, that is anyway fulfilling Wikipedia standards and customs about the usage of the contemporary names, moreover not any affected Wikiprojects have a debate on the status quo on the correspondent time. Also, a current user User talk:Şerban Alexandru Oprescu the 4th time overriding consensus and reverting continously with the IP Adresses simultaneously on a while the lead and the infobox. Since I am not an expert how to handle IP adresses, I warned more times the user in the edit log, the third time on his personal page about WP:Disruptive editing....and again the same scenario happened...it is very disturbing, the user is totally ignoring the case and rejecting communication. Please intervene to solve the problem. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi,
I spent a lot of time to read carefully WP:edit war, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Vandalism, to really identify what action can be taken and when. Since the corresponding content is a result of a consensus that was approved that time an Administrator, restoring to the consensus content I did not found as a violation of any rule, moreover, it is about the biography of a living person. I also did not see the case of an edit war, since first the IP adresses and their partners made these action not so often like the recent time, however the 3RR was not even approached that is a clear limit of violation. Since IP adresses I dont know how to deal, after the second-third time I warned the editor, also in his personal page, since only Disruptive editing I was able to prove, and the guidelines said we have to first to initiate a communication. This case, the corresponding user should have be a partner in communication and try to build a new consensus, although in this case he has almost no chance for this, regarding what he forces is not valid. As you see, other editors also made reverts in this question like me, and I think most of my reverts consist of anonymus IP Adresses. If I did soemething wrong, I am sorry, tell me in the future what is the clear limit/trigger to ask for Administrator assistance (I mean I should not distinguish between phantom IP's or editor's with account?)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: If you really read carefully WP:edit war, as you say, than you probably read that "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable." You also read that "3 revert rule is not a definition of edit warring, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." You reverted to your proffered version 11 times in several days, which is obvious edit warring. Your conclusion that restoring to the consensus content is not edit warring is wrong. It is not allowed to edit war even if you are right. Instead, you should follow the usual WP:BRD process and try to discuss the matter with other editor(s) before you revert their edits. You were just reverting without trying to discuss. I found only one attempt of yours to discuss the issue (here), but even that message was left after you already reverted that user's edit. Leaving wp:edit summaries does not really count as discussing. Regarding IP editors, they should be treated the same way as registered users. There should be no difference in approach. You don't need to be expert for IP editors. The fact that the other editor is editing anonymously does not give you the right to edit war. The fact that other editors also made reverts is of no importance here; you are not allowed to edit war just because someone else is edit warring. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you cite, it is not totally clear what repeatedly would mean. Without any exact definition it would mean after two reverts the station should be treated as an edit war, thus an Administrator should have been warned. Usually, by experience after three failed attempts I initiated an exact talk page communication if the edit summary short reasoning was not enough. Maybe this "three" attempts come from the 3RR that is a clear limit, although for something else. Please note 2 reverts was with an other editor that after stopped the disruptive editing, thus that case solved on it's own. So, I apologize again and I will follow in the future according as you clarified here. What I have learned that any consensus even with a former Administrator approval has not any advantage - regarding reverting or edit warring policy - with any bold edit with any new addition that would be disputed. I have learned also that with IP adresses also I should initiate at once WP:BRD policy - since many people has random generated IP address by service, I was not sure how effective it would be. Well my problematic interpretation was about edit warring, I did not regarded the case like so. So please, tell me what is repeatedly by totally exact definition, because I regarded the bright line 3RR as a trigger for obvious edit warring, that's why I concentrated on the case of disruptive editing.
-I.E., if I make two reverts for a similar case an it is solved on it's own since the rogue activity is ceased by the correspondent editor, then I also involved myself in an edit war, or it is feasible? (it is obvious that justone revert does not fullfill repeatedly)
- Or if it goes farther, I should not perform a third one, but better contact an Admin?
- I should initiate a WP:BRD even immediately after the first revert?
Thanks for further clarification!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: "Repeatedly" means repeating something several times. There is no precise definition of how many times that should be, it depends on the time frame and other factors. But, making 11 similar reverts in several days, as you have done, is obviously "repeatedly". Note that it doesn't matter whether you revert one editor or different editors. If the dispute stops after two reverts, then it is obviously not a problem. The WP:BRD process should be followed whenever it's possible. For example, if you see something problematic in an article, you may remove it and explain your action in the edit summary. But, if another editor reverts your edit, you should not revert him, but you should initiate a discussion. The best place for that is the article talk page. You should clearly explain your position at the talk page and ping the other editor to join discussion. If the other editor does not respond in reasonable time (day or two), only then you may revert him. That is simple effective process. If the other editor (or another editor) reverts you again without joining discussion, that you may notify admins or other editors interested in the topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:SIG MCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SIG MCX. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

u5

I'll defer to your judgement despite the lack of any other contributions from the user in his 5 months except 3 versions of his vanity page. If you're feeling that kindly toward him, his image is tagged for deletion as self-promotion over on commons. for (;;) (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American Maritime Ministry Association

Just wondering why the page North American Maritime Ministry Association was deleted. It is a significant umbrella organization representing more than 50 other organizations in the same non-profit sector. The article was written in a neutral tone and was linked to other articles on Wikipedia. Is it not possible to suggest edits instead of simple deletion? NammaED (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)NAMMAED[reply]

@NammaED: The article was deleted according to the [[WP:A7] criteria. There was nothing in the article to show that this organization is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The best way to show the notability is to cite several reliable independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (see: WP:42). The only source that was cited is organization's own web site (not an independent source). Also, Wikipedia does not allow WP:COI editing. Since you are the Executive Director of the organization, you shouldn't be editing anything related to your organization. By the way, you'll have to change your username because it represents a WP:ROLE account, which is not allowed. I left a message about username change on your talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Duco

Sorry, i dont speak english. but Natalia Ducó is an error. the name real is Natalia Duco (es:Natalia Duco) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osepu (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i dont move this article to Natalia Duco please helpme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osepu (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Osepu: It says Natalia Ducó here and here. Can you show some reliable sources to prove that it's otherwise? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common mistake, but look [4] and see its official website [5]. Also I have the birth certificate registrar of San Felipe in pdf.--Osepu (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank --Osepu (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Procedure

Is there a way to appeal SPI decisions? Specifically, I'm concerned about this SPI that you archived, where the analysis that was the basis for the close does not meaningfully address the most important piece of evidence namely the recreated articles. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Did you try to discuss it with Bbb23 and EdJohnston? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per a comment by Bbb23 on my talk page this is now resolved, and two more accounts are blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piet.delaney's sockpuppetry investigation

I recommend that Piet.delaney be re-instated and that his other account Pete.delaney be block. I have known Piet.delaney for over a decade and am pretty sure that if he had known that multiple accounts are not allowed he would not have created one. I don't see a significant advantage on him having had two accounts . In others words I failed to see the abuse. So in the interest of Internet courtesy and diplomacy I ask that Piet.delaney be unblock.Arradis (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arradis: You should ask blocking administrator (Bbb23). Only WP:checkusers are allowed to undo checkuser blocks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Is User:Sachin66 just another sockpuppet of User:Ravindu Navin, whoever it is seems determined to recreate Maya (2016 film). Needs to be checked out and since you were involved last time. Dan arndt (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I'd suggest that you check out User:Kavindu555 at the same time. Dan arndt (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HellO... what's this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin66 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: I already opened a SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravindu Navin. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arindami34

Thanks for reviewing that case - I'm still learning, of course

The reason I recommended 2 weeks was because of the wanton personal attacks by the sock - but I understand your decision to give 1 week instead. I appreciate your feedback on block lengths, and it's an area where I'll gain some experience. Thanks,

GABgab 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward category names

Appreciate if you would have them moved.--Zoupan 22:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

I saw your comment here. It was my understanding that COI editing is "stongly discouraged", not outright prohibited. Could you please point out where WP:COI says one may not write an article about a topic one is associated with? Whether that's a good idea is another matter entirely, but "not allowed" seems a little stronger than how I interpreted the policy. Huon (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: My understanding is that one shouldn't be doing what is "strongly discouraged". I admit that my wording ("not allowed") is wrong. Anyway, I don't see it being prohibited to ask from the blocked user not to make COI edits in order to be unblocked. As per WP:BP#Conditional_unblock, administrators may, with the agreement of the blocked user, impose conditions when unblocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

  • 13 July 2016: 7,000
  • 1 August 2016: 9,000
  • 7 August 2016: 10,472
  • 16 August 2016: 11,500
  • 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I was previously very active at WP:NPP, but I completely lost interest few months ago after this. User SwisterTwister was reviewing pages en masse, marking several pages per minute as "reviewed". For me, it was obviously wrong and I thought that such a practice makes new page patrolling senseless. But, the community thought that such a way of patrolling is OK. Since then, I don't see a point of patrolling. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS for Ikcir

After the guy replied while the ticket was in CU queue it put it back in the awaiting reviewer queue, so I sent it back to CU queue for you, but apparently that also reserved it under my name. I've released it now so you can jump back in and reserve it again. Apologies for the inconvenience! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Thank you for unblocking me Ikcir (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the sockpuppetry tag from my User page?Ikcir (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikcir: OF course. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user Shingling334 and their socks

I have earlier communicated with user Ian.thomson about the socks that got Shingling334 indeffed in the first place, see here. Since Ian seems to be busy in real life, and since you have just recently been looking into further socking, I will report this to you. Shingling334 has repeated their earlier pattern of behaviour: uploading copyvios to Commons and immediately after using an IP address to insert the picture in an article. This time the IP address, 92.28.251.68, was located not in Mersin, Turkey, but in Ipswich, England, which is actually quite funny, given the edit summary of one of the Mersin socks here. Back from holiday back home, one would guess. Talk about digging their own grave. Anyway, that last upload got Shingling334 indeffed also in Commons, so there is not much action to take. Given the history, however, there is a chance that we will see new socks popping up. I will be on the lookout. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: That IP is not active any more, so I don't understand what you want me to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that this one was recent enough to be regarded as still active. If not, sorry for bothering you. (I will, however, be looking out for more socks.) Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: No, it was active for few hours, five days ago, and than was abandoned. That is not ongoing disruption. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Serbian Patriarchs changed again, by user Zoupan.

Last night, in course of 12 minutes (from 00.02 to 00.14) user "Zoupan" made (again) a series of changes, by removing words "Serbian Patriarch" from titles of this pages: Atanasije I, Maksim I, Mojsije I, Pajsije II, Vikentije I. In the same time, he made another, totally different set of changes, by transferring words "Serbian Patriarch" from the title beginning to the title end of this pages: Irinej, Serbian Patriarch, Pavle, Serbian Patriarch, German, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo V, Serbian Patriarch, Vikentije II, Serbian Patriarch. Several questions must be raised here. First, there is the question of consistency. Why did user "Zoupan" made two sets of different changes, only he knows, I hope. By making first set of changes, he created titles that are more appropriate for disambiguation pages. By making second set of changes, he divided Serbian Patriarchs into two, so to say "Zoupanian" categories: those who "deserve" to be styled as Serbian Patriarchs, and dose who do not (for some reason, known only to user "Zoupan"). By making such changes he created a situation that needs to be addressed, because we need a standardized form for page titles on Serbian Patriarchs, and that form must include words "Serbian Patriarch" because that was and still is their basic title. Some other questions should be raised here, but I think that recent actions of user "Zoupan" regarding various pages on Serbian Church history speak loudly for themselves. Sorabino (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorabino: As I already said I recommend a centralized discussion on the topic. Remind me if I'm wrong, but there is still no such discussion initiated. The best place for that would be WT:SERBIA or WT:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. If you start such discussion, you should leave notices at talk pages of all affected articles (i.e. articles on Serbian Patriarchs). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to disambiguate. These are the most known (or only notable) people with these names. As for the title, it is never prefixed in English WP. I have already stated this here. Stop with your conspiracy theory. There is no "division".--Zoupan 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pritimoy Paul

If you look at the template it says "This applies to all pages that contain an Articles for Creation template or are located in the Draft namespace." And since the page is located in a draft page, it can be filed under G13 for speedy deletion. Says so here too. GamerPro64 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: WP:G13 is clear: This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts [...], as well as any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. The page that you tagged for speedy deletion was not using the {{AFC submission}} template, so it is not covered by this criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchate of Peć

When you moved Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation) to Patriarchate of Peć, it created a whole slew of links to the new dab page (Patriarchate of Peć) that now have to be disambiguated. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, Patriarchate of Peć was the primary topic, and Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation) held the dab page. Now that the primary topic has been moved to Patriarchate of Peć (monastery), Patriarchate of Peć should be a redirect to it, and the dab page should be put back to Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation), with a {{redirect}} hatnote at Patriarchate of Peć (monastery). As a non-admin, I cannot do this swap myself, and I thought I'd ask you before going to WP:RM. — Gorthian (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorthian: I don't agree that the monastery is the WP:primary topic. Take a look at this Google Books search [6]. Among the first five results, one is about the monastery, while four are about the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a consensus on this that you can point me to? I'll gladly take on the disambiguation project if so. — Gorthian (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorthian: Consensus for what? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that it is not the primary topic. — Gorthian (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus as of my knowledge. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you move it back until there is consensus? — Gorthian (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was moved to the current title by Zoupan (diff), not by me. I just moved it back [7] after it was moved to the title "Monastery of Peć" by Sorabino[8]. After that, Sorabino called my move "a good solution" [9]. So, three of us (Zoupan, Sorabino and me) agree to that, and that looks like an implicit consensus to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, I think that user Vanjagenije is right here. On several occasions during past few months we have been discussing various issues about the meanings and common use of the term "Patriarchate of Peć". During discussions, we used search engines for various relevant terms on Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News. The results were quite clear: in English language, the term "Patriarchate of Peć" is commonly used in two different meanings, as a designation for the Patriarchate (1346-1766) and also as a designation for the Monastery. Since page Patriarchate of Peć on English Wikipedia was previously pointing only to the Monastery, that was creating confusion, because in many articles that link was also used in reference to the Patriarchate (1346-1766). In order to resolve all that, 4 steps were made. First, page Serbian Patriarchate of Peć was made for the Patriarchate (1346-1766). Second, term "monastery" was introduced into the title of the page for the Monastery. Then, page Patriarchate of Peć was made into a disambiguation page, pointing equally to the Monastery and the Patriarchate. And finally, links Patriarchate of Peć in all articles were sorted according to the context, and replaced with direct links for the Monastery or the Patriarchate. As I said before, this was a very complex issue, and I think that user Vanjagenije found a very good technical solution, that reduces any possibility of confusion to a minimum. Sorabino (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, Sorabino, quite a process. Thank you for explaining it so thoroughly. And thank you especially for going through and fixing all the links to the new dab page. That was the part I was concerned with. It's far better for subject-knowledgeable editors to fix those than leaving them for members of WP:DPL to sort through. Your efforts are much appreciated! — Gorthian (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Quick?

Earlier today I tagged Volunteermedia and JamesRichards88 with uw-agf-sock. James' edits started after the last of VM's, so there's no overlap to make it an SPI case. I suspect that my tagging of VM's articles as COI may have prompted a change of account to avoid that taint. James has since removed 3 speedies from VM's articles. Behaviourally I'm sure they're the same person. Quack! Later on (after all the users' edits) you blocked VM for spam & username. Special:Diff/738011767.

I'm on the fence as to where to go from here...

  • Assume sock behaviour in the CSD removal, revert & caution (x3); or
  • Ask for a Quick SPI to confirm the link, then revert & caution (x3); or
  • Start an SPI on the basis of the new account removing speedies & avoiding the restrictions on doing so on one's own articles.

Your advice, pretty please. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the first option. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I opened an investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteermedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

= Novak Djoković

Posto znas srpski odnosno hrvatski, odgovoricu ti na istom. Slucajno sam pregledao clanke o Djokovicu i Drazenu Petrovicu. Od vas, isfrustriranih nacionalista normalan covjek ne moze pobjeci ni u virtualnom svijetu. Zbog takvih poput tebe, dva uvodna clanka su bukvalno zatrpana podacima o krvnim zrncima Drazena Petrovica i Novaka Djokovica, vjerovatno dvojice najboljih sportasa sa ovih prostora. Obrisao sam dio o Novaku, a planirao i o Drazenu, koji se odnosi na hrvatsko-crnogorska navodna porijekla prvog, a srpska drugog, jer su POTPUNO NEBITNA za online enciklopediju. Osim imena roditelja i mjesta rodjenja, te vazne informacije o rodbinskoj vezi Drazena Petrovica i Dejana Bodiroge, sva ostala etnička nagadjanja nemaju nikakve potrebe biti gdje jesu i zatrpavati tekstove. Naveo sam i u editu da je navodno etnicko porijeklo nebitno, tako da to JESTE validan razlog za brisanja koja sam poduzeo.


BYXL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was reached for Drazen Petrovic's article as well, I imagine? Great, rapid nationalists in agreement. Later on I intend to come back with some factual references regarding ethnicity, nationality etc... just to "disrupt" your consensus... on both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 00:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one is obsessed by someone's nationality that makes a person a nationalist, and a rabid one. If and when I do explain my position it will be to change the current state of the article, which in itself is a disruption of the consensus reached. Therefore, I'm not threatening, just stating a sequence of events which will most likely follow. My position is that both references regarding origin of Novak's parents (and of Drazen Petrovic, which I guess you have read by now) are redundant and written solely for the purpose of promoting extreme right wing / racist propaganda. Just because a couple of contributors made an agreement on a text doesn't make it an empirical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moj savjet je takodjer da prihvatite upute koje napisao Byxl, naljutili ste ovom promjenom jako puno ljudi i sigurno je da necete moci da zadrzite clanak uredjen u ovom obliku, posebno iz razloga sto je koncenzus napravljen pod pritiskom nekoliko nacionalista, posebno onog koji se potpisuje sa kavon nesto i koji ne bi ni trebao da sudjeluje u bilo kakvom odlucivanju, ali je konstantnim provociranju usao pod kozu, isto tako sto su ignorirani neki izvori naustrb drugih, posebno sada ako se desi da Novak osvoji US OPEN i kada ljudi skrenu paznju na wiki eng. Djokovic ima ogromnu popularnost i ljudi ga izuzetno cijene u Srbiji, posebno nakon onih poplava prije 2 godine, i sigurno nece biti sretni kada vide da je kao glavni izvor uzeta Slobodna Dalmacija, novine koje imaju posebnu sekciju pod nazivom vlaska posla i ciji je jedini cilj ultra desnicarenje i dizanje tenzija. Bolje je da vratite kako je bilo prije . Evo i moj potpis da me ne mijenjate s drugima MARK.

Semi-protection

Serbs needs immediate Semi-protection.--Zoupan 02:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User: Codename Lisa bit newcomers. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 14:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije&oldid=738549718"