User talk:Vanamonde93

Inlinetext

I got pinged by this user. I didn't interact with him too much as he says. Perhaps he didn't like my delete vote in one AFD. @Thryduulf I have not claimed that OZ was AP or Ekvastra. I have claimed that AP is connected and was admittedly a meat-puppet of OZ (diff provided earlier) and OZ friendly editors eg. User:D4iNa4, User:Capitals00, User:Marvellous_Spider-Man have continued to edit colllusively and abusively as meatpuppets to harass me. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: This is best ignored. You know as well as I do that Inlinetext is not the first to feel suspicious about that set of accounts, including yours. Far more experienced editors than him, including me, have noticed the overlap in the interaction. Vanamonde (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext has "noticed" nothing, he is just trolling because he is repeating the refuted claims he read on different SPIs and he goes ahead to make up his own gibberish by connecting these accounts including mine with some former admin and alleged paid editors, thats nothing more than trolling and WP:ALLSOCKS. You can say its his modus operandi.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#User:Inlinetext] D4iNa4 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Rangers

Could I please ask under which rationale the article was deleted, as this is part of a bigger issue of amateur articles having insufficient notability criteria defined, with soccer clubs in tier 9, local rugby clubs, village cricket teams, tier 6 rugby league clubs all put up for deletion and no consistency or deeper analysis or roadmap put forwards by those seeking to delete. Seems very harsh to delete some and save others.Fleets (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fleets: The article was deleted because I judged that there was consensus at the deletion discussion that it did not meet our standards for notability. Essentially, those arguing to keep the article need to show how the subject is notable, preferably through providing coverage in multiple reliable sources. This was not done. No other compelling argument was provided, either. I suggest you go back to the discussion, and read the policies/guidelines that folks linked to. As to other pages, see WP:OSE. If those are not notable, then they should be sent to AfD, too, but their existence is not a reason to keep this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I could understand that the article, being poorly sourced was a viable target for someone wanting to delete something. Having read the discussion, here and with other articles it has become apparent that the guidelines not have a good level of detail when applied to amateur sports clubs. My question, would be to you as the person who deleted it, what was the rationale as an article that it failed to meet as we have people asserting that the club itself was not eligible, regardless of the standard of the article. Elsewhere we have soccer clubs lower in the pyramid than this getting by, because of a consensus at Footy that it was notable, regardless of GNG or any other rationale. You see where I'm going that a tit-for-tat AFD may come about due to insufficient binding guidelines that fit for an amateur sports club. I am not volunteering to help, just volunteering that it has become a noticeable creep on previously fine articles.Fleets (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if this bothers you, this is a problem you need to raise at the relevant noticeboard; possibly at a project noticeboard for football. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Docherty

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Docherty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism...

This user - User_talk:2607:FEA8:569F:FABC:D69A:20FF:FE5F:486F is straight back to vandalism after numerous warnings, and two blocks in the last week. Might be time for a longer (ie: indefinite) blocking...

Chris Keating (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Docherty

The article Mary Docherty you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary Docherty for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Docherty

The article Mary Docherty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary Docherty for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note about a user blocked by you

Sorry for disturb. A user blocked 2 weeks by you is removing (1st and 2nd rollback) your notices. Btw, checking his contribs, it seems that this is a habit (some examples: 1st, 2nd, a block notice, another block notice etc). Speaking about the warning (and block) notices removed after the end of block, I've just reported the links because it is still unclear to me if the operation is possible (Maybe yes. In that case, sorry for the redundant kb added by me). Btw, the removal of notices during the block (as for the words of Davey2010) looks like forbidden, and so, a vandalism. Sorry for disturb, is just to notice the "case", because it seems you are following it. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Profpremrajpushpakaran

Hi Vanamonde93, Could you revoke TP access for Profpremrajpushpakaran as they're constantly blanking their page whilst they're still blocked,
Not a major crime however it's still disruptive editing and as far as I know block templates must remain until the block expires,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and DerBorg: Yeah, I've been seeing that. As Davey says, it's not the biggest crime, but it is disruptive. I've told them that I will revoke access if they continue to remove the template, and I will follow through with that. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'm beginning to wonder if Indef is the best option but perhaps I'm being harsh, Anyway thanks for dealing with that, –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

prophet bushiri

Hi vanamonde

I would like to know why you deleted, a page you wrote about prophet bushiri, I need to to write an article about him but soonly I discovered your wrote a page about him and you deleted……Major Rabotsokarika (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Major Rabotsokarika: Sorry, I honestly have no idea which page you are referring to. There never was a page called "prophet bushiri" on Wikipedia. Can you link to the title you want to know about? Vanamonde (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding comments of Mr. Manmohan Singh

I agree that in the article of 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation, the comment might not be appropriate in the lead section, but can you show me the location otherwise in the body of the article as you are saying it is mentioned? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai: I didn't say it was in the body. Those were separate statements. The stuff you removed as "unsourced" is sourced in the body, so I restored it. Manmohan Singh is undue weight for the lede, so I removed it. You could add it to the body, if it's not already there: I lose track of all the statements that have been stockpiled. Vanamonde (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Thanks a lot for your help and guidance. Thanks once again. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I need your Help

Hi. Can you please participate in this discussion (regarding direct flights of Air India) and express your views ? I think all the claims I have made are pretty accurate and verifiable. I want to have a consensus, though the user who started this discussion must seek consensus. I shall be very much thankful to you for your involvement and help. Vibhss (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I'm afraid I don't have experience with airport related articles. If there is any disruption going on, I could potentially step in in an admin capacity, but I don't think that's the case just yet. Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: (talk page stalker) You might want to consider asking at WT:AIRLINES. I guess the issue is whether flight numbers determine the existence of a flight or whether plane changes nullify the 'directness' of the flight. This is likely a very common thing in the airline world and there might already be consensus on how to treat them. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: But I have not started this discussion. I have just responded to the initiator of this discussion correcting his wrong interpretations. Well, the concerned direct flight operates with same flight number (on all days) and same aircraft (on most days with a particular pattern as explained in the discussion). Vibhss (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: RegentsPark's suggestion is an excellent one, and I suggest you follow it. If I knew anything about airport articles your argument might be convincing, but I don't. You are having a disagreement with a user acting in good faith, even if they may be wrong; so you need to bring more people into the discussion, and RP showed you the best place to do it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

why the page bharat ke veer deleted

i want to know what is the reason why the bharat ke veer page deleted this page directly show the interest of people and i want to aware the people that there is a web portal by which you can help our martyrs so why do you delete it if you delete it then write this page otherwise don't delete it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikone (talk • contribs) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaushikone: The page was deleted because it was written in a promotional manner. Please read WP:NOTPROMO, WP:V, and WP:RS. The topic is also likely not notable. Vanamonde (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brandishing a firearm

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brandishing a firearm. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:/r/The Donald

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:/r/The Donald. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hi I am Percy Percy7875 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. Vanamonde (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Literary Barnstar
		For your valuable work on the writings of Ursula K. Le Guin --Thnidu (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you, Thnidu! I enjoy her writing, so it almost isn't work :) Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's how I feel about much of my Wikignomishness. :-) And "Pandora" has been one of my lodestars through most of my reading, which began around 1952. --Thnidu (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

SWEDHR founder professor

Good afternoon,

I address here issues of seemingly politically biased agenda, and of serious defamation, regarding recent edits in the article Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, including its Talk page, and the article on that organization's founder. The reason why I'm writing to you in the first place, is because I saw that you have intervened and clarified issues around the deletion-proposal done against the article on Swedhr.

The same users that proposed the failed deletion of that article have now erased most of the content and references of a version which during two years had remained stable, truthful and objective, despite subsequent edits after its creation (by Hrdap) and principally after a helpful major revision done by User:W.carter in April 2015.

One of these users, who also is now asking for the deletion of the article about the founder of SWEDHR, Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli, even writes in the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Ferrada de Noli that SWEDHR "only output is statements supporting the views of the Russian government"!

The facts: these actions have taken place after SWEDHR's important human rights denounces with geopolitical value. These investigations have recently been reported as evidence in the United Nations Security Council, and more recently at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The SWEDHR investigations have put in question the reliability of sources alleging the nature and/or origin of alleged gas attacks in Syria. SWEDHR, on the other hand, has not denied that gas attacks would have taken place in Syria (see document linked below). --Hrdap (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to ask you on the following,

a) For help in the restoring of a tenable version of the SWEDHR, reverting it to the version published just prior the biased editings that started with the request of deleting the article altogether.

b) For possible sustainable protection of the article in prevention of future vandalism,

c) To kindly examine the situation regarding the new deleting attempt, meaning the article about the SWEDHR founder professor.

Sincerely,

User Hrdap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdap (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hrdap: To be quite honest I am not entirely certain why you are coming to me, as I have no expertise in the subject per se. What I did was to close the previous AfD [1] which is one of several tasks I perform as an administrator. I might look in on this deletion discussion as well, but I will not intervene directly in the content dispute, as it is too much of a mess, and I do not have the time or the patience. Also, please read WP:TLDR; the longer a post gets, the harder it is to read all of it. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry to have disturbed you. There is no other reason than the one I wrote. It was thou excessive background info, I can see that now. And thanks for the link on appropriate text-length. / User Hrdap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdap (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Otilia Brumă

Hi. A couple of months ago, you deleted an article on this person per G4. (Apparently, that target is also salted.) I'm guessing this too is eligible, even if it's been recreated under a different title. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this particular performer but does the fact that one of her YouTube videos - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j0dlcfekqw - has almost 123 million views - 122,934,709 at the moment - convey some measure of notability? Plus various of her other YouTube videos have 5.8 million views, 1.8 million.... She also appears to have charted in Turkey at #1 and charted at #1 in Greece with "Bilionera" http://www.apropotv.ro/muzica/otilia-si-bilionera-sunt-de-10-saptamani-numarul-1-la-radourile-din-grecia-13897243-articol. Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. @Biruitorul: Honestly this is a bit of a mess; Otilia_(singer) and Otilia Bruma have both been deleted many times, mostly under A7, and one of those has been salted. BUT, these deletions occurred a while ago, and while youtube views do not contribute towards notability, they do suggest that some other evidence of notability will be available. So I'd rather not speedy delete this, and I'd suggest you send it to AfD, if you cannot find anything about her. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Protection of 2017 Berkeley protests

I don't see any request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎. What prompted you to apply protection? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Probably watchlisted. If Vanamonde93 hadn't protected it, I would have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: I have watchlisted Drmies talk page, which is where I saw the dispute, but honestly that does not matter very much. I'm uninvolved on that page, and can therefore apply protection to it when a dispute is in progress. More details are in my reply here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you please consider revdeleting this edit? I already asked another admin, but I don't think she saw my message. Funcrunch (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Done. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

re The Church Lady

Hi, thanks for protecting that page. That whole thing was weird. Apparently there's a bad editor using a range of those long IP addresess -- 2605:8d80:440:91fd:e8cc:e6f4:7b4c:b51c and so forth -- attacking the page. It's in the page history. Don't know if you want to block that range or keep an eye it or what, just a heads-up. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: thanks for the heads up. If a range block is needed, I'm afraid I'm not your person: perhaps a Certain Large Reptile might be able to help. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bishzilla only pick low-hanging IPv6 fruit, sorry! She need situation where first four groups of figures are same; then she chop off rest of IP, add some colons and slashes and "64", and block. (Satisfying! Yes!! Try it, little Vanamonde!) When only three groups are same, as in Church Lady history, Zilla hands too big, regret. Better ask some even more formidable power user. Young WritKeeper maybe? My little Ponyo? bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Zilla: Who are you calling little? I am an immensely old being of pure intellect. Thanks, maybe I'll try it sometime :) Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohh, seems young WritKeeper is blocked, naughty vandal! Try little Writ Keeper instead. [[Bishzilla sticks the little Vanamonde in her pocket and throws away the key.] Hehe. bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

45.59.9.250

45.59.9.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

When blocking this IP address, did you notice that they had just come off of a 3 month block? You made it 48 hours, instead of escalating the block after that 3 months (which was fairly recent ago). Regards. 194.186.229.150 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah your right...I saw one previous block, and so I gave it 48 hours, which is the run-of-the-mill second block: it didn't cross my mind that the first block for an IP address would be longer than 31 hours; but in this case this seems to have been justified, so I've upped it to 6 months. Vanamonde (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page

Hi Vanamonde93,

I was instructed to edit/update Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her personal visitant and most of the information was outdated including the image used (which she did not like). I really need to go in and make those edits that you deleted, therefore please do not delete again or revert any of the edits done. You can of course go in and include information (if factual) but do not delete.

Based on the information I shared with you above, I will be going back into her Wikipedia page and once again add all the information that was deleted.

If you have any further questions let me know.

Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the reply below. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page

Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also innacurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikepedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of. Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabrinaalvarez: Greetings. Please keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page, and so you need to exercise great care with your editing, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Your biography is covered by the policy on biographies of living people. Therefore, any information in it is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, which is how we verify the truth of any facts on Wikipedia. If there are facts which are incorrect and/or not supported by reliable sources in the article about you, the best way for you to go about addressing this is to post to the talk page of the article with your concerns. If this does not work, or if your concerns are very serious, then the best thing to do would be to contact WP:OTRS, which is meant to help with situations like this. Finally, please remember that according to our policy on a neutral point of view, your article needs to be written based on how you are described in reliable sources, not how you choose to describe yourself. At the moment, this article fails these policies quite badly: we shall have to see what to do about that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabrinaalvarez: I told you: please post to the talk page of the article, or contact WP:OTRS. There are instructions for the latter at this link: Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sooooo

User:Justcallmesam is at it again, this time using 219.78.72.53 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) to indulge in his "is it a valid taxon" meshugaas. I gave him a level 4 warning, but he's been warned like, what, 20, 30 times about this, in addition to being blocked, and none of those appear to have penetrated his skull about this behavior. You think he's reached the end of his WP:ROPE?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do here. I have blocked the original account for disruptive editing, but really that's not going to help very much because he's already using IP addresses, that are clearly not very stable. I'd suggest you find an admin willing to check whether a range block is possible (Bishonen, or Ponyo, perhaps); otherwise, I'm very much afraid we might have a LTA situation on our hands. Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you for your assistance.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your warning to me about sourcing

All due respect, I'm baffled about the warning you gave me on my Talk page about sourcing. If you look at the edits I made to USC Trojans football, you will see that all the edits I made are properly sourced. I have cited books and newspaper articles for my edits. Moreover, those books and newspapers are legitimate sources. I have also attempted to introduce a discussion about a topic under consideration on the Talk page, but to no avail. I initiated the discussion but User:UW Dawgs has not answered. Moreover, that user (a partisan of the U of Washington Huskies, one of USC's rivals, BTW), has gone through and marked up the article with numerous "unreferenced section" tags. Plainly this is motivated by wanting to edit-war with me, not with wanting to improve the article in question. I don't think he is editing in good faith at this particular article. Maybe you can help me, or at least tell me why my edits are not properly sourced, if indeed they are not properly sourced. For example, is there anything wrong with this edit? Chisme (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, what part was I not clear about? It seems to me you understood what I was saying, given that the edit that you just linked to was fine. Stuff like this, on the other hand, is not so good. Yes, perhaps those links support that information, but it should typically still be sourced here for the sake of verifiability. You will note that I didn't warn you about incorrect content; merely that sometimes you were neglecting to duplicate sources, or add sources, as necessary. This is especially true because the content was in dispute. It is true that the editor you are in conflict with has also displayed sub-par behavior, but I have already asked them not to use standard templated warnings with relatively experienced users such as yourself: I have now also left them a note about section-based templates. If it's any consolation, you were reported to AIV, and given that there were some edits of yours that had added unsourced information, you could easily have ended up with a block. To cut a long story short, maybe you just need to be more careful in showing that your content is, in fact, verifiable? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this, Vanamonde. I think my edits were made in good faith. Even the edit you cite, for example, was not made offhand. It may look like I was inserting unsourced material, but really I was re-inserting content from the "Actors & entertainment industry" section that User:UW Dawgs removed. Moreover, when I took up UW Dawgs's challenge to properly source this section, which required considerable research on my part, UW Dawg summarily dismissed my research with an "Importance Section" tag. He/she did this without addressing the issue on the Talk page, as I invited him/her to do. Who's acting in good faith here? You may note that UW Dawgs inserted ten "Unreferenced Section" tags into the article in the space of seven minutes. Can anyone in good faith realistically investigate ten topics in only seven minutes to determine whether they are referenced correctly? Chisme (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you are acting in good faith, though perhaps you could avoid the mildly sarcastic edit summaries? Your pique is understandable. I have asked UW Dawg to be more careful with tags, so let's see how it goes from here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Pique" -- I like your choice of words. What do I do now? Do I need to address every one of his "Importance Section" references, no matter how arbitrarily they were applied? There are now 13 in the article. I think I'm entitled to remove Dawg's "contains information of unclear or questionable importance" on the "Connection to Hollywood arts and entertainment industry" section since I went to so much trouble to research it and he didn't address his concerns on the Talk page. Chisme (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gifts (novel)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gifts (novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gifts (novel)

The article Gifts (novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gifts (novel) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Armando Codina

Hi Vanamonde93, I've made the updates you requested on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AngieSB/Armando_Codina (adding sources). Please let me know if you need any other changes in order to make the page visible again. Thank you for your help! --AngieSB (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)