User talk:Vanamonde93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anti-Indian sentiment[edit]

I added that section in response to Indian trolls who added a useless terrorism section on the Anti-Pakistan sentiment section it cant go both ways so it must be removed or added for both articles double standards will not be tolerated. Excipient0 (talk) 22: 32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Excipient0, unencyclopedic content in one article is not reason to put unencyclopedic content elsewhere; that sort of edit is designed to make a point rather than improve the encyclopedia. I would suggest beginning a discussion on the talk page of the "anti-Pakistan sentiment" article, and if the "troll" does not discuss it, then appropriate steps can be taken. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22: 37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you start a discussion on the Anti-indian sentiment page also just a thought. Excipient0 (talk) 22: 39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I boldly removed the content because it was out of place. If it had been reverted, I would have discussed. I would recommend against reverting, because you more or less admitted that you agreed with me, and so that would be pointy in the extreme. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22: 41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the way I came across I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of some of these illiterate editors who blindly push a pov have a great day sir. Excipient0 (talk) 22: 55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted, just quit tit-for-tat editing and focus on removing the synthesis from those two articles. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22: 56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned the synthesis on the article before but the user Human3015 is not very educated on wikipedia policies and just follows his own pov its difficult to discuss since he does not reply with anything of relevance. Excipient0 (talk) 22: 58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Being Unbiased[edit]

In topics related to Communal riots and India-Pakistan rivalry , wars , Kashmir disputes. there are too much edit wars. I like editing movie pages but i can't tolerate any wrong INfo about anybody. You are more experienced. Please be unbiased and don't follow anti-Indian or anti-Hindu approach. Most experienced Indian editors are impartial but most Pakistani editors (with exception of very few) are biased. You are better than most POV pushers but still not as good as one would expect. However some users are there who are anti-Muslim in nature and it's good that you revert their biased edits. I don't like editing these riots and war related topics. I like Movies, Food and Geography. Be neutral and keep wiki safe. Happy editing. Cheers.C E (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This user Excipient0 might need arbitration in future.--Cosmic  Emperor  10:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more than likely. Unless a passing admin just indefs them as WP:NOTHERE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
He might be back. I was checking Darkness Shines talk page and came into this.Cosmic  Emperor  16:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I was aware of that. I just haven't had experience with Nangaparbat myself, so I don't have the behavioral knowledge needed to file an SPI. Unless Callannecc acts on DS's say-so, there's not much I can do. If you feel like filing an SPI, go ahead, and I will add my two cents. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE May 2015 copy edit drive recognition[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Vanamonde93 for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words during the GOCE May 2015 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism[edit]

Hi Vanamonde93, it seems that a recent edit has added a lot of POV content, if it isn't too much to ask could you check it? Thanks in advance. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sugar ant[edit]

I finally had some time to work on the Sugar ant article and I may have clarified everything that required attention, so are you able to give the article a quick read? I was unable to find any information for the questions you asked in the articles talk page. I am surprised that such details are not known (that I know of) since this is a very common ant here in Australia, thus making it a study interest to those who work in the entomology field. Nonetheless I believe the article is rather comprehensive with the available information given, and it is also in a much better state after first working on it. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1, I'll give it a read. It certainly has been significantly improved; I'm just concerned that the gaps in the literature will prevent it from becoming a GA, through no fault of your own. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm pretty concerned as well; I'll try again to find some information for the questions you raised, but so far I can only answer those based on personal observations (got two queens in captivity). Since this is original research, I am unable to add it in. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I get it ;[edit]

Look at my El Salvador stuff in comparison.

Anyways, are you well versed in any of the following?

Haiti, Indonesia, the Shah's Iran, Colombia, Guatemala, and/or Iraq?--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you get; the text you inserted was verging too much on POV commentary. Yes, the US labelled the Sandinistas wrong; but we say that in the correct place, not every possible instance. As for your other question; I know very little about Indonesia, Iran, and Iraq (I've done some work on Abu Ghrahib, nothing outside that). I've read a fair bit about Latin America, and Guatemala in particular. Why? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That is what I get. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was wondering if you wanted to help me fix up the U.S. and state terror page like the other one.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In principle, yes; that article has been a WP:COATRACK for quite some time. The trouble is I'm a little busy in RL at the moment, and I also have a couple of wiki things higher up my list. At some point in the near future, possibly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I already have another section pretty much finished. Should I clear the page of argumentative content?--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest posting on the talk page before you do so. If you don't get any response, then you can be bold and make your changes. The one thing you don't want to do is edit-war your text into the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh. I cleared it before you responded yesterday. No one has said anything though. It's a ghost page.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, just be sure to discuss rather than edit war if someone should object. I'm also not certain that all of the blanking was justified; you're right that the page should not be about the argument, but Chomsky and Herman contributed majorly to the definition, and so they should be included for certain. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you want me to restore something in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S0mewhat Damaged05 (talkcontribs) 22:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the old "notable works" section has information worth preserving, particularly the views of Herman, George, and Chomsky. Actually I would say it needs a little expansion, it was a little too abstract. And I'm not attached to the section title in the least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I'm getting ready to go out but I'll be working on it tomorrow. I got a couple more short ones, then I'll be busy on one section for a week at a time, maybe.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone is trying to delete the entire page. --S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What should I do?--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not read all of that source material, but your task is pretty straightforward; you need to demonstrate that every sentence you wrote is explicitly supported by reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok. Like this:

"Petraeus and Steele would unleash this local force on the Sunni population as well as the insurgents and their supporters and anyone else who was unlucky enough to get in the way. It was classic counterinsurgency. It was also letting a lethal, sectarian genie out of the bottle. The consequences for Iraqi society would be catastrophic. At the height of the civil war two years later 3,000 bodies a month were turning up on the streets of Iraq — many of them innocent civilians of sectarian war."--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing the facts; but to label them state terrorism, you need a source calling them terrorism. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I'll remove the section until then. Thanks.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right though. The source really has to use the word "terrorism" even though it is by any stretch of the definition?--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the Iran section has to go too since the sources don't call it "state terrorism". It's only mass murder.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, yes. The policies about WP:NOR are pretty clear. In the case of terrorism this can be an issue, because terrorism is poorly defined and inconsistently applied, especially here in the west. But we've got to work with what we have. If you dig deeper, I'm sure you can find sources. Have you looked at Blakeley, for instance? I have not read her thoroughly, but I know she writes about state terrorism. Try this and this for starters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess it's for the best. I'll look into it.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I should just move the El Salvador content to it's own page since it's so large and will likely remain the largest of them all? I actually have more to add if you can believe it.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Right now, I don't think so. It's relatively long, but in absolute terms the page is well within the limits for acceptable length, so splitting may not be necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a decent book so far, the first one. Been reading it off and on.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger[edit]

hi - it's disputed, p-lase find a consensus on talk - WP:CONSENSUS AND WP:BRD are your future, not WP:EDITWAR I hope Govindaharihari (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read BRD thoroughly before quoting it at other people. The content in dispute was in the article; the bold edit removed it, and was reverted. The revert was doubly justified because the removed content was sourced. Sources have no obligation to be neutral, only to be reliable, and the economist certainly is reliable. Please discuss any wording changes you might want on the talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Get a WP:Consensus on talk - or get over it Govindaharihari (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you read the policy you are linking, you would see that consensus is required for a change; you are the one who needs to establish a consensus, not me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
go for it then, ignore the requests for discussion - if you think you can just stuff it back in when it's disputed, by multiple editors. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There are supposedly three editors disputing it, two of which were IPs. You are the only one on the talk, and none of you have provided a policy based reason for removal. I have "ignored" nothing; I initiated the discussion, and have not touched the article since, which you very conspicuously have. You are just being tendentious at this point, so stay off my talk until you have constructive things to say. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Could you please recuse yourself from editing or contributing facts on South Asian topics (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh etc). You clearly have strong opinions on these subjects, which is damaging the neutrality of Wikipedia and is also damaging unrelated pages such as your insistence of including obvious POV on Henry Kissinger. (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Vanamonde93 is one of our best editors here on South Asian topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Stick to scholarly sources, and this is where it gets you. IP, if you looked through my editing history you'll see that I've been accused of POV pushing by pretty much every political faction here, which is probably a decent indication that I'm sticking to the straight and narrow. If you want to discuss specific edits with me in a policy bound way I'm happy to do so. Kautilya, thanks for the vote of confidence, friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

They are back[edit]

@Tiptoety: [1] -- (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, have you possibly gotten the wrong talk page? I have not, to the best of my knowledge, dipped my toes into that particular mess. I presume that by "they" you mean the socks of Wifione? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please take another look[edit]

Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Dispatched or invaded[edit]

Hello. You changed the wording from Juan Manuel de Rosas from "the British were dispatched to the Río de la Plata" to "invaded the Río de la Plata". That is the river, not the viceroyalty. They didn't invade the river, they were sent there. Please, correct that mistake. --Lecen (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Lecen. Yes, I made the change, and I was aware of the translation; I made the change because the term was used elsewhere. The problem you are pointing out applies to the page title itself. Also, since RS (and other articles) refer to it as an invasion, we should use that word. However, I have tweaked it to read "a British expeditionary force invaded the La Plata Basin," (with the appropriate link) in order to address your concern. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks...[edit]

...for your vote of support over at my RfA. It's greatly appreciated; I shall strive to be worthy of your trust in all my dealings. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Good luck with the mop. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June blitz bling[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Vanamonde93 for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words during the GOCE June 2015 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

increasing reading pleasure
Thank you, citizen of the world, interested in creating "short articles on neglected topics, expanding stubs, or rewriting poorly sourced and written articles", for quality articles such as Guatemalan Revolution and Teddy Osei, for reviews with depth and for prolific outstanding copy-editing, for edit summaries increasing reading pleasure, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

wow, awesome work Vanamonde! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much, Gerda Arendt! I really appreciate it. Thanks to you too, Ugog. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)