User talk:Vanamonde93: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
طاها (talk | contribs)
441 edits
Line 208: Line 208:
Hi, recently you reverted an edit I made on the said page on the pretext that it was doubling contradictions and was soundbyte. Kindly explain to me your objections and why the statements she made herself after the controversy were removed along with the Army's statement. Also, I reverted your edit please don't think I am engaging in some edit war. I have already added a discussion on the article talk page. [[User:AnadiDoD|AnadiDoD]] ([[User talk:AnadiDoD|talk]]) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, recently you reverted an edit I made on the said page on the pretext that it was doubling contradictions and was soundbyte. Kindly explain to me your objections and why the statements she made herself after the controversy were removed along with the Army's statement. Also, I reverted your edit please don't think I am engaging in some edit war. I have already added a discussion on the article talk page. [[User:AnadiDoD|AnadiDoD]] ([[User talk:AnadiDoD|talk]]) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|AnadiDoD}} By reverting repeatedly, you ''are'' edit-warring: just saying you aren't doesn't make it so. I will respond on the talk page, which is the right place for that discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|AnadiDoD}} By reverting repeatedly, you ''are'' edit-warring: just saying you aren't doesn't make it so. I will respond on the talk page, which is the right place for that discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

== Message in my talk page ==

Hi Vanamonde. I have asked you two questions in my talk page [[User_talk:BiObserver#Iranian_politics_general_sanctions_notice]]. I would appreciate if you respond there. Best, [[User:طاها|Taha]] ([[User talk:طاها|talk]]) 02:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:46, 20 August 2019


WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  • Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, 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 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 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

DYK for Bramble Cay melomys

On 20 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bramble Cay melomys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the extinction of the Bramble Cay melomys was described as the first for a mammal species due to anthropogenic climate change? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bramble Cay melomys), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject Socialism membership system

Hello! I'm in the process of introducing a new membership system to WikiProject Socialism (designed as part of WikiProject X and adopted by a few other projects). The new system works by filling a form which creates a WikiProject Card. I'm manually creating WikiProject cards for current members. You can find and edit yours here. Any change to your WikiProject card will be automaticalle updated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Members. If you have any doubt, please, feel free to contact me by replying here using the {{re}} template. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN location

Thanks for the reminder. In all the Framgate bollocks, I forgot. Hopefully remedied now. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: No problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass MOS:IS violations

Hi Vanamonde93, I'm writing to you as an admin with an interest in India-related articles. this IP has been systematically adding native names in an Indic script (Tamil?) to Indian locality articles. I've left a message on their talk page which they don't appear to have taken note of. Could you – or a helpful talk-page watcher – take appropriate action? The thought of going through and reverting all their edits with Twinkle does not fill me with joy, and I'm unsure that it would be the most productive action in any case. Thank-you in advance :) Wham2001 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Serols and Fylindfotberserk have rolled the offending edits back, and Ad Orientem has blocked. Thank-you all. Wham2001 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wham2001, Thank you and welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding sooner; I have been inactive for close to a week. Thanks to those who took care of this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Antifa (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antifa (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article 35A

Oh hello, did you even bother to read the article of rising kashmir. The article itself has given all references regarding the arguments. Don't remove now my changes now.

I have read that source several times. It does not comply with our guideline on reliable sources, and needs to be removed. If the website provides good sources for that content, then use those sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen you Indian, are you going to teach the developer of the product guidelines now? What you know about Kashmir and autonomy? who are you to remove my edits? DONT REMOVE MY CHANGES. OK

I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia; explaining our guidelines to new users is one of the things administrators are meant to do. Also, you have no basis on which to determine my nationality, my nationality is irrelevant here anyway, and my knowledge of recent Kashmiri history is probably superior to that of most editors of that page; so for the last time, please read the links I posted to your talk page, and make edits of a sort that won't have to be removed by someone else. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Ram Ram Rajya Parishad.

This has reference to the removal of my edit.

1. Please note that ' The party eventually merged with Jan Sangh........' is without any proper reference this must be removed.

2. I quoted the reference for the edit I made. It is only an extract from the book I cited, which speaks that the founder's values are different from the values of Jan Sangh.

3. Hence please remove that edit which I have pointed out at point 1 above. Then there is no need to reactivate the edit I made.

--Ramesam54 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramesam54: Please read a little more carefully. The statement in the article is sourced to the Bell article, which explicitly supports the information in question. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article 35A

I responded to your note on my talk page. I thought I would add that I wrote a paper about Kashmir when I was in college, in the 1960s. I have added that here because I try not to disclose anything about myself even though this bit of information is probably not very informative. In any event, I thought information about me would be less likely noticed here and that you might find it of some interest. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Many thanks. I do indeed find it of interest; the Kashmir conflict is a long and sad story, but also one that is very instructive; or I find it to be, anyhow. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was offline for a few days. The Kashmir story was already a long, sad story more than 50 years ago. I wish I still had the paper. It was supposed to be a neutral history paper but I can't remember the details from so long ago. At that time, of course, if one did not make a carbon paper copy of a typewritten paper, or have the paper returned after grading, one did not have a copy. Copy machines were still rather new and there was no such thing as a home copier. Donner60 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me...

I would make it so the community elected new admins once every 6 months, and then I'd pay you and 2 other highly qualified admins to be Admin trainers. The position would entail teaching the new plebes (1) what they need to know about admin etiquette (which you have exhibited so eloquently), (2) what is expected of them as admins, (3) how to use the tools, and (4) ?? etc. At the end of each 6 mos training interval, the plebes will be evaluated by all 3 admin trainers, and will either pass or fail. And then it starts all over again with the next batch of newly elected plebes. \S/ Atsme Talk 📧 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Well that's very kind of you. Indeed the idea of admin mentors in general is a good one, because otherwise there's a bit of a catch-22; you can't be good at many of the things admins need to do without doing them, and to do them you need the tools, so you'll never be good at them as long as you're not an admin. But it's a struggle even to make minor tweaks at the moment, so...Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage certificate of Jinnah

Greetings,
I feel this photo might be a copyright violation File:Nikahnama-jinah.png. I do not understand how a marriage certificate becomes "own work". Opinion? Should we nominate the photo for deletion? Or it comes under some PD act, such as PD-text? Thanks and regards in advance. --Titodutta (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: What the author probably means is that they took a photograph of the certificate, but you're right of course, it's the copyright status of the certificate itself that matters. Which would require knowledge of the applicable Pakistani and US laws; that knowledge I don't have. I wonder if our resident expert would be willing to help. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is the original certificate from the 1918 wedding, it would almost certainly be out of copyright in both Pakistan and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Titodutta: Nikkimaria makes a good point; pd-1923 should apply, and given that it's highly unlikely for there to be a public display of a copyrighted more recent reproduction, I suppose there's no harm in placing that tag. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, many thanks. Glad to know possibly we can save this photo. Once we get to know the "Source" (if not "own work", we need to mention the source), we can fix it. If it is ok for you, we can ask a Commons admin such as Yann (not linking right now) to check and fix it. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but since it's not getting deleted, anyone should be able to fix it - it doesn't require admin rights. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Spanbauer

I'm surprised you characterized this as an attack page when it's an referenced article about a serial killer. It's hard to see any factual article about a murderer and rapist as being anything but a negative article. I think the draft needs work and I think it should be deleted as a copyright violation but it will never be a positive article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I don't expect or want a positive page; but I would characterize any page using sentences like "His mental issue drove him to carry out his first wrongdoing" and "The judge named him a"sexual go astray" and condemned him to seventy years in jail", sourced to blogs and/or unreliable sources, an attack page. Even if he is a notable serial killer, we're doing a disservice to our readers with a page like that. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. I appreciate you explaining your reasons. Some of the writing was pretty glib but I was surprised to read the sources which supported the basics facts of his life story. But some of the copy was directly lifted from them so I will delete for both reasons. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Much appreciated. Perhaps you noticed already, but it was tagged as a G11(!) before I got there, which is how I came across it in the first place...Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!

Just to be sure you don't miss this [1]. EEng 07:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I did see that comment, and I see that you've placed some tags in the article. I'm watching the discussion with interest. I don't know if you're interested in more advice at this point, but I think it's worth remembering that whether or not criticism is taken well often has more to do with how it's presented than with whether it's justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean our fellow editors aren't cold emotional robots? You amaze me! Of course you're right in general, but quite frankly I gave up weeks ago trying to get this gang to give serious consideration – or any consideration at all – to criticism of what they do; the job now is to get the community to see at last that this emperor has been naked all these years, and its only the ecstatic, hypnotic dancing of the whirling dervishes all around him that has kept the community from saying with one voice what everyone individually knows. This isn't a content dispute, it's a very serious ownership-bullying behavioral matter.
I appreciate your taking the time at AE to do what only a few others did, which was to actually read the article talk-page discussion and summarize it for others in a way that allows them (those not willfully blind, that is) to see what's really going on there; though I must say Swarm takes the prize for really ramming the truth home. Perhaps in your abundant spare you can take the extra step of commenting at the RfC. To support the version I and 10 other editors worked on for six weeks before it was arbitrarily reverted because this superb (cough) FA with it's unimpeachable (hack, cough, retch) sourcing mustn't be sullied, click here; to support the old version which for eleven years has carried the same contradictions, duplications, circumlocutions, elegant variation, and dada details, click here. EEng 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am always happy to receive friendly advice. While in the end I have to do what I think will be best and most effective, it is never a waste of time and effort to exhort your fellow man to follow the better angels of their natures. EEng 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Well, I try to refrain from posting general commentary about other editors on-wiki, because I rarely find it to be a productive exercise; but I think I made my thoughts on this particular discussion quite clear. I'll keep an eye on that RFC, but I'm not keen on commenting, because I think it's not unlikely that the matter will come to admin attention again, and I've already taken the trouble to familiarize myself with some of it, so I'd rather remain uninvolved. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such wise restraint! EEng 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Israel Shamir

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel Shamir. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Guin story

I saw your responses and will look through in the next couple of days. In the meantime, I found something I thought you might be interested in. I sell old sf magazines, and I was listing the August 1964 Amazing Stories and found it had a short story by Le Guin, "Selection", that I'd never heard of. According to ISFDB it's never been reprinted unless you count one of the UPD reprint magazines including it in 1970. I'm surprised to find any of her early work omitted from collections; presumably it's not very good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Yes indeed; when writing Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography I found (partly thanks to you asking me to dredge through ISFDB) that there were a number of stories never discussed by the literature. The imbalances in the coverage are quite fascinating, really; I mean Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness are superb, but she's written other stories that seem to completely fly under the radar. I'd be interested to see if there's renewed interest in her work after her death; who knows, it might even spur some new anthologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just read it; it's fairly traditional sf, mildly amusing. I don't think this one will ever be anthologized! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, one can hope. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Rashid article reverting and adding allegations made by Indian Army

Hi, recently you reverted an edit I made on the said page on the pretext that it was doubling contradictions and was soundbyte. Kindly explain to me your objections and why the statements she made herself after the controversy were removed along with the Army's statement. Also, I reverted your edit please don't think I am engaging in some edit war. I have already added a discussion on the article talk page. AnadiDoD (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnadiDoD: By reverting repeatedly, you are edit-warring: just saying you aren't doesn't make it so. I will respond on the talk page, which is the right place for that discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message in my talk page

Hi Vanamonde. I have asked you two questions in my talk page User_talk:BiObserver#Iranian_politics_general_sanctions_notice. I would appreciate if you respond there. Best, Taha (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=911627883"