This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Vanamonde93

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

Back again Comment[edit]

Happy to see you return, Could you take a look over List of Presidents of India to check if it meets the FL criteria. I have made some gnome like edits today and feel that it may be okay for FL. Best wishes for your renewed admin term-

To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]

06:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Force Radical: I'm not particularly well-versed with FL criteria: I've never taken an article through the FLC. That said, this generally looks very solid. There are a few issues that should probably be addressed. There's a few grammatical points in the lead: I'll try to fix these later today or tomorrow. There are some unsourced bits in the "Notes" section of the table. The map you use is the Indian government map of the country, which Wikipedia generally avoids: it should use the de facto map, depicting Kashmir in the manner in which the territories are actually administered. The first Dalit President and the first Muslim president are probably worth mentioning in the lead, though that's more a matter of judgement. We should absolutely not be conflating the BJP and Janata Party candidates. They were distinct parties with distinct agendas. It is true that a faction of the JP later became the BJP, but that faction was previously the Jana Sangh: the Janata Party was a coalition, with many members, including INC factions. I also do not see why acting presidents should not have party affiliation colors, even if they are independents. Finally, I wonder if we could use colors that are easier on the eyes; the blue, in particular, is very harsh. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have sourced the unsourced statements, made the Colors neutral and added a pie chart .The picture of the India map is not replaceable as there exists no other survey on those lines. Also acting president is a person who becomes president in the absence of the actual Since he does not participate in elections I have decided against including their party Colors. I also have seperated the Janta Party and BJP. Please take a look at it -
To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]

11:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Force Radical: The sourcing changes look good. In general you could afford to trim the bios a little bit, though that's more a matter of preference. There's also some slightly undue weight in Kalam's bio; it's a lot more like journalese than the others. Finally, the map really is going to be a sticking point. It shouldn't be that difficult; the data are all there in the current image, all you have to do is create a new one with the outline adjusted. If you're uncomfortable working with images, as I am, there are folks who can help. Vanamonde (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Map has been done (Maproom did it for me since Snapseed and Adobe Photoshop Express failed me).I hope it is up to the FLC.-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 11:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It's in decent shape: nothing stands out to me at the moment, but I'm no expert on FLC, I haven't done much work with lists. Give it a shot, I'd say. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done here (Sorry for being late at posting this )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look over this and give pointers on developing it to GA class — comment added by Force Radical (talkcontribs) 04:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Force Radical:I had contributed to the article previously and this looks a very interesting proposal.If you wish, I can chime in.Winged Blades Godric 04:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Winged Blades of Godric-Sure, the more heads the better- — comment added by Force Radical (talkcontribs) 04:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Force Radical: It's an interesting topic. I'm a bit busy at the moment, though, and am likely to be away for a few days. I'll try to get to it after that. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018[edit]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Drudge Report[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Drudge Report. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The random IP range 213.162.72.*[edit]

The random IP range 213.162.72.* is also causing havoc in the article Hanbok. Can you please put that article under protection too? VeryGoodBoy (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree on a protection, but an admin should check this user, who seems to be a korean(probably oversea korean) ethnic POV pusher. His claims are not supported by the included source nor by historic researches. Even the source mention 86% caucasian burials in the kurgans west of altai mountain and he claim it as a "mongoloid culture" whatever this shoul be... Probably he even start to claim all of central asia as korean like the hwanguk-mrmbers claim... Even in korea they are seen as fringe hypernationalistic organization... See the webpage "koreansentry"... (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The history of that page shows that you are both being disruptive by edit-warring, which is not okay. I've fully protected the page, as I can see no blatant reason to favor one version over another. Please come to a consensus on the talk page, and use a process such as WP:DRN or an WP:RFC to settle differences that remain. Vanamonde (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

Minor Readability: Star formation in Perseus through the Spitzer telescope[edit]

I had difficulty reading this sentence on top of your wonderful image on your user pageWakelamp (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: Hmm, good to know, is this a color issue? Would a lighter blue help? Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
yes where you have used lighter blue it is great. Similarly for the words at the top. I am not colour blind, but blues on blacks cause me a few issues. Thank-you Wakelamp (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
looks great now - hope you family issues go OK Wakelamp (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Selk'nam Page[edit]

It has been suggested by you to take my dispute on the Selk'nam page to the talk page. Which is something I have done 2 times with no response. And now that you protected the page I can't get rid of the "Keyuk Yanten" thing because he edited back before you protected it.

You see, the anonymous user claims Keyuk Yanten to be the last Selk'nam speaker with this article as proof

yet the page doesn't show him speaking in Selk'nam at all. Besides,  it doesn't show evidence of him being of Selk'nam descent, only personal stories which in reality mean nothing. ¿If they don't want to collaborate or at least defend their stance what else can I do?

If this qualifies as some sort of harassment, I'm sorry, I didn't know nor intended it to be. Tomás Vicente (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, my reading of the new yorker article is somewhat different. The claims made in it may not be accurate, but the article is making the claims it is used for. Which makes this basically a content dispute about whether the material is reliable and how it should be presented. This is not a dispute I will enter as an administrator, and is something you need to sort out on the talk page. If the other user does not respond, you have several options available to you to invite outside scrutiny: you can open an WP:RFC, invite previous contributors to comment on the discussion, try dispute resolution, and so forth. It is absolutely fine to ask me questions to clarify things (as you have done here); what would be bothersome is if you pester me to change my decision after it has been explained to you (which you haven't done, so you're okay so far). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Please comment on Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I accidentally typed User:Vanamonde at AE, so I’m not sure if you got pinged when I asked this question of you:

It would be really, really appreciated if you or another uninvolved admin would please answer a fairly straightforward question: assuming arguendo that the second of my two edits was a good faith attempt to change the first edit to meet objections to it, was it “reinstating an edit”? It seems like a reasonable question that I’m asking, and I thought the answer was “no”.

Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: My personal reading of that would be "yes". You made an edit, and it was reverted. On a page without the consensus required restriction (ie a less contentious page) adding a modified version of your content may not be a bad idea. On this page, it was a bad idea; you should simply have proposed your new version on the talk, and added it after reaching consensus. I do not necessarily believe you were acting in bad faith, but that also does not necessarily make it okay. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If that’s what “reinstating an edit” means, I think they ought to just slap 0RR on these articles. Anyway, I’d be glad in future to treat your “yes” answer as authoritative, assuming the other admins agree with it. Maybe it could also be spelled out in some guideline or template somewhere that “reinstating an edit” includes this scenario. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The island def jam music group[edit]

What you doing give back label founder this label Samsung 93 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please take any suggestions you have to the talk page of that article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

user you blocked[edit]

You recently blocked ZaDoraemonzu7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Today s/he has returned from their block only to go back to adding uncited material. [1], as well continue their pattern of creating poorly sourced articles Egypt–Poland relations. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@LibStar: Thanks for letting me know: it would appear that NeilN has blocked them for a week while I was busy elsewhere. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Skokka Deleted[edit]

Hi Vanamonde,

I created the page Skokka but it got deleted because it looked like I was advertising it. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and according to my talk page you are the deleting administrator to ask for the a retrieval of the text. Since this is my first article I want to learn in the process so if you could send me the text in order to improve it I'd appreciate it. Also a few tips on neutrality would make me some good 'cause I don't want to publish it only for it to be removed again.

Before I end, two questions. First, I found four articles in newspapers that mention Skokka and in my previous version I added two in external links. Should I talk about the press coverage Skokka has gotten and then reference them instead of addind the links in external? And second, in the external links section how do you create a table like I've seen in many article? I wanted to create a table instead of adding each country's link in a list so if it is possible let me know how.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind Regards, AnitaDinamita (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@AnitaDinamita: It's good that you want to rewrite this page to comply with our guidelines. The page as you wrote it, though, was very concerning; it was severely promotional in tone, and it had nothing in the way of reliable sources to satisfy concerns about verifiability and notability. So my suggestion is the following. Read the policies I've linked here carefully, and also read WP:NOTPROMO. After that, if you still think that a page about this website is appropriate for Wikipedia, then find reliable sources you can base your article on, and create a page based entirely on those sources. By starting from scratch in this way, you will avoid all the problems with your first draft. I'm not trying to create additional work for you: but I'm quite certain that if you try to "fix up" your original, it will still have issues with promotional language. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I created a Draft:Skokka so I can edit without it being deleted in case there is something wrong. I know it may be bothersome, but could you please check the draft and tell me if it would be suitable to become an article? I think the neutrality issue has been solved but let me know if you see something wrong or change worthy. If you can't check the draft I will understand it, but thanks anyway. Kind Regards,AnitaDinamita (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time to do a full check. This version is better, but you still need to have more sources; a lot of the content in your draft is still unverifiable. Vanamonde (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Erotic photography model‎[edit]

There is one source, a bare URL, that links to a modelling agency. Looks like spam to me. Famousdog (c) 08:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Famousdog: It is possible that that reference was placed with promotional intent, but the article itself I cannot see as being unambiguously promotional. I deleted the reference when I removed the CSD tag, and the user may need to be monitored, but I'm not deleting that under CSD. If you still feel it inappropriate, take it to AfD. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. I think your approach is better. Famousdog (c) 09:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Replied! Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

Hi @Vanamonde93:, I believe the article 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament was deleted without there being a proper consensus, if anything, there was a slight consensus favoring the article being kept (I don't think a "rough consensus" is adequate for deletion grounds). I don't want to assume that it was a WP:TRIGGERED or WP:OZD deletion, but based on the arguments supporting a deletion, and the arguments supporting a keep, it feels that the article was deleted more so out of not liking the content or sources, without a thorough examination of the sources provided. If we can reach some level of agreement, or understanding, I will avoid taking the page through a deletion review. Thanks. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry. I've absolutely no axe to grind here; I don't give two hoots about US college football. The consensus was what it was: there were five keep votes, of which one wished to keep because otherwise the page would be a redlink, one who said they were unsure, and one who said it was because it determined an entrant into the division one championship. As such, these !votes cannot be given much weight, leaving a consensus to delete. There were substantive questions raised about both your sources and the guideline you were quoting, which you had not, in my view, answered well enough. In any case, I'm not interested in re-litigating the AfD here. If you don't like the outcome, you've got to live with it. If you think I read the consensus wrong, you can take it to DRV, by all means. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a pathetic answer, and I will be going through with a nomination, you should feel very sorry. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)This ain't a battleground and how about assuming some good faith?!Winged Blades Godric 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your close of the 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament DRV[edit]

Thanks for closing this, but could you please re-close it using the correct format template? Instructions are at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..I came here after this series of bold edits.Hope, you won't mind.Regrets!Winged Blades Godric 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thanks for letting me know. @Winged Blades of Godric: Not at all: thanks for taking care of it. I might be an admin, but every time I need to do something even slightly new syntax-wise, I tend to frack it up the first time. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
PS, if you're going to be closing DRVs, I suggest you install User:Lifebaka/closedrv.js. That automates most of the tedious formatting. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I'm unsure if I'm going to make a habit of it, but the script can't hurt: thanks! Vanamonde (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news



  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mukul Sinha[edit]

Hi there! I did a bit of work on this page a few days ago, cleaning it up a bit, and just returned to do a bit more, but a lot of what I had done has been messed around with by another user (whose work you then partially removed). That users work reintroduced several errors including really bad grammar, peacocky language, various bits of incorrectly cited information ie, claims the subject died of a heart attack when newspaper reports clearly state lung cancer etc etc. I cant revert it without reverting you...I've only been editing a few months, so not sure if its good form to ask to revert you, or wether you can revert yourself or? I was going to try to take it back to this version. Curdle (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curdle: Thanks for asking. I've no problem if you revert me in this circumstance, and very few editors will have a problem with you going back to a "last good version", so long as that does not actually involve a revert of the content they added/removed. In this case, I was objecting to the stuff in the "controversy" section, which isn't present in the version you linked, either, so there's no issues. That version, though, could also do with some copy-editing. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou ! Uhuh it still needs going over some more,(some of the citations arent as good as they could be and a bit stretched, as well as more copy editing) thats why I came back to it- and it took a bit of work to get it to that state, which was why it was a bit scary to see it all gone. Anyways, reverted now, will work on the rest tommorrow as its late here now.Curdle (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Vanamonde93. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

An exceptional barnstar for you[edit]

Women in the World Barnstar with laurels.png The World Contest Laurels
Thankyou for the hard work you put into developing the missing article lists for Women in Red World Contest!! You won the Librarian's 1st Prize of $25!-♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to donate any of your winnings into the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need them on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate in the sub section below the prize winners on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Dr. Blofeld! I confess I did not expect to win that. Vanamonde (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You did put in a decent effort and on multiple lists when few others bothered. When I offer a prize I mean it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Canada[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Please comment on SR Technics. Thank you, --Ванилица (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ванилица: I see that that page has been deleted: but why, in any case, are you contacting me about this? I haven't had anything to do with the page that I can see. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You have deleted that page on 27.11.2017. like promotion of SR Technics, but details are not copied from their official site. After adding some references to that page, page had been deleted again, and my User:Ванилица/sandbox too. In, in which was SR Technics, also there are many diferent companies, and they are doing the same activity.--Ванилица (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to carefully read WP:NOTPROMO, WP:RS, and WP:N before trying to create any more pages. Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Mueller[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Mueller. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you adding extremist and militant to Bajrang Dal lead introduction[edit]

As you can see in my edit I have already pointed out the standard which needs to be followed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsaral (talkcontribs) 17:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Essentially because that is the predominant description in reliable sources. Please read WP:NPOV carefully, and discuss any issues you have with the present wording on the talk page of the article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... This user has been already pretty well alerted of the discretionary sanctions and other policies...Any thoughts?Winged Blades Godric 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If they keep removing content they don't like, they are going to end up with a topic-ban, no doubt; at the moment, though, a little more rope is probably needed. I wish I had the time to try to explain policy to them, but I don't, at the moment. I don't know that it will do any good, but it needs to be tried. Vanamonde (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you guys completely missing the point/ trying to miss the point/ pretending to miss the point. The same text with same reasoning is not allowed on Zakir Naik page with reason that "article already has this info so why to add it in the lead". now when I am trying to apply the same logic "article already has this info so why to add it in the lead" then you guys being admins instead of helping me are trying to show that I am in a edit war? Is that the best you guys do seriously ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravsaral (talkcontribs) 18:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

and this Winged Blades is reverting my changes with complete detail without giving any reason for revert. To be specific the messed up/ made up GDP info about Mughal empire. BTW you guys do understand that writing it on Wikipedia under fake names will not make it real. Right?

And, do you understand that your POV pushing ventures will lead to but an indefinite block?
As to the edit at Mughal empire, the data is about 1700s, not 1500s.So don't put up strawmans.Also, 17th century Mughal empire is approx. equal to entire India and much more.(I did not read the book in much details but will assume that, by India, the author refers to the synonymous Mughal span, for demarcating historical GDPs by current country boundaries would be pretty difficult.And, the source qualifies RS by a mile.Winged Blades Godric 18:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Vajrang Dal[edit]

I'm on a mobile and accesibilty is limited.But,I believed D4ina removed two sources (Cristophe Jaffrelot and Chetan Bhatt) that marked the organisation as militant and instead added one describing it as paramilitary.Can you double-vet that?Winged Blades Godric 19:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades Godric 19:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I've reverted the removal. Vanamonde (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OTD caption[edit]

Re Haruna, thanks, but it might be good to add , 1915 to the caption. Sca (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sca: Good call. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Contest Prize[edit]

Please email me and state your user name, email address and how much I owe you in your preferred currency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)