This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a SPI clerk.

User talk:Vanjagenije

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User:Vanjagenije
User:Vanjagenije/Articles
User:Vanjagenije/Files
User:Vanjagenije/Userboxes
User:Vanjagenije/Awards
User:Vanjagenije/Tools
User talk:Vanjagenije/News
User:Vanjagenije/Deletion log
User talk:Vanjagenije
Main
Articles
Files
Userboxes
Awards
Tools
News
Deletion log
Talk page


Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you! Vanjagenije (talk)

Rollbacking[edit]

Hi, re this edit: I don't think you should be using the rollback facility against Tiger7253, who is a new editor who has made some helpful contributions to List of highest mountains on Earth. By convention we go by de facto national borders, footnoting disputes, but these edits are surely not vandalism. Viewfinder (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Come on. K2 is not even in Kashmir, so it's not disputed in any way. The edit is an obvious nationalistic nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
All our relevant articles indicate that K2 is claimed by India. We have a footnote about this, so you were correct to revert the edit, but I still do not think that it was made by a bad faith editor. Viewfinder (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Country versus former country establishments[edit]

This leads me to a question: Should the "X establishments in Y" strictly be used for establishments in former countries (retrospect), or could it be used to categorize in a "legacy" manner, with emphasis on modern territory? There seems to be no rule, take a look at Category:18th-century establishments by country; i.e. Germany did not exist in the 18th century, and therefore clashes with the former concept. What are your thoughts on this?--Zoupan 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zoupan: I don't know. It seams to me that this problem needs wider discussion. The said category (Category:18th-century establishments by country) is also full of countries that do not exist any more (Category:18th-century establishments in the Republic of Genoa‎, Category:18th-century establishments in the Thirteen Colonies‎, ...). So, it seams to me that the original intention was to list the events in retrospect. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

User:Arjunvarma jadeja looks like sockpuppet of User:Hunter Arjunsinh. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunter Arjunsinh/Archive. I don't know how to inform about it so posted here as you investigated it in past. Also check User:AaryaDon which is also suspected for multiple account abuse which may linked to it. Regards, --Nizil (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I realize WP:CIR is important, but I suppose[edit]

I feel a tad bit bad for WP:DENYing this. --JustBerry (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustBerry: What do you expect me to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing. Just discussing. --JustBerry (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@JustBerry: You fell bad about your own denial, or about my denial? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I suppose about the situation in general. To address this, I have offered a few words here. --JustBerry (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Axel Tuanzebe[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije, I am writing on your wall to request removal of protection of Axel Tuanzebe so that Draft:Axel Tuanzebe can be moved to start Axel Tuanzebe. The subject of the article made his debut today thus satisfying WP:NFOOTY. Thanks - Inter&anthro (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Hm, not sure... WP:NFOOTY says that Players who have played [...] in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. FA Cup is not a league. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes but it is a full competitive competition, I'm pretty sure that the article passes WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I've posted on the WikiProject:Football talk page to see if this hold true. I will get back to you as soon as they respond. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, sorry for the frequent post on your talk page, one user has now told me that the subject does pass WP:NFOOTY now. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. The policy clearly says league. The article was deleted six months ago after a RFD discussion. You can ask the admin who wp:salted the article (KrakatoaKatie) to remove the protection. By, I think the proper way would be to seek WP:Deletion review if you are sure the notability is now established (I'm not sure). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Saša Janković[edit]

My bad, I have overlooked "would" instead of "will".--AirWolf talk 13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocking Heracletus[edit]

Dear Vanjagenije,

Yesterday, you blocked user:Heracletus, because he had used a sock (Absinthia Stacy 13). In the unblocking statement a few hours later, you indicated Absinthia was an impersonator of Heracletus. The link between Heracletus and Absinthia is not obvious to me, as the pages he edited and his behaviour varied strongly, and the only suggestion on of a connection I could find was given by you. Could you indicate what made you conclude Heracletus was Absinthia? Maybe it's a common mistake that in this way other can be helped to avoid? L.tak (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@L.tak: No, I cant tell you that. I don't want to help sockpuppets avoid detection by publicly talking about methods for detecting them. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is always the balance between openness towards to community for transparency purposes (that useful amongst others for creating a safe environment where people never have to be afraid to be blocked) and to avoid such errors in the future (by others; there may be biases involved that groups of people on wp have) on one hand; and the need to prevent socks or impersonators to understand those methods. In case of long term abusers (e.g. where we make filters), I can imagine it's not that safe, but in this case I'd think the need for accountability for the two reasons I gave outweighs any potential problems that it may cause. I therefore urge you to do come up with an explanation. If you really cannot do that on wiki, feel free to email me... L.tak (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but...[edit]

I declined your speedy on Robert Gaskin. It was a barque trying to salvage a train ferry (not a car ferry in 1889!) and it got sunk too. How notable it is, that's another matter. There is stuff on Google, and it appears to be a popular place for divers. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

GBA?[edit]

Hi V, what happened to the CU endorsement for Google Boys? The case has been archived. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: You provided no explanation on why the Cu is needed. All accounts were already blocked. We perform sleepers check only when we have some reason to believe there might be sleeper accounts. What would be that reason in this case? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's back up a sec: you endorsed the request. Anyway, I did provide an explanation: "Requesting CU, since this tends to be the best way to ID all of the open sock accounts." GBA typically has multiple sock accounts going at once, as we know from the archive and from the burst in January. If you don't think the CU is warranted, that's fine, but that's not clear from your silent close and archive. Also, I didn't know that clerk endorsement was required for admin CU requests, but I'll admit I don't know all the rules about that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I only endorsed the CU request in order to check whether the two cases should be merged, as I explicitly wrote [1]. But, the connection was obvious, so I shouldn't have endorsed it anyway. I didn't endorse sleepers check, nor I think it is needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding account[edit]

My co-worker and I actually use this same IP address, and we both usually work the overnight shift. In fact I was the one who told him about reading Wikipedia articles to pass the time. He has done a lot of editing under the address, but some of it not necessary, like changing red links. He thought red links should be removed. He has also edited in places that I have, I assume because he checks on my username. He doesn't have internet at home, and thought he needed an email address to create an account. I told him he could just use my account if he ever wants to edit anything in order to avoid any confusion. Hopefully he won't get us both kicked off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juneblade (talkcontribs) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Juneblade: First of all, sharing an account between several people is strongly prohibited (see WP:ROLE). For legal reasons, every edit has to be attributed to a single account used by a single person, so please, do not let anyone use your account. What you've been doing is not forbidden per se, but when two people edit from the same computer (using two accounts, or one account and one anonymously), they should properly declare that (see: WP:COWORKER). You are not "kicked off", your IP address is blocked for anonymous editing for one month, that's all. But, you can get blocked for a longer period if you don't follow the rules I pointed out above. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije
Duly noted. I will suggest that my co-worker just create an account, and after that I will
add the shared IP template to my user page. Thank you for the clarification. Juneblade

Visibility changes[edit]

Hi, thanks for the RD2 visibility changes on the tennis articles today. Could you do one more that slipped through? --Wolbo (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aika tappaa[edit]

Closing the discussion as Delete is bizarre. Recognizing that 'it is not a vote', the overwhelming consensus was plainly Keep. We are supposed to accept his because you said so? This will be submitted for deletion review.
As required by WP:Deletion review I am asking you to 'work this out' and rescind your action. If I don't hear from you, I will seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate forum. 7&6=thirteen () 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

When I closed that discussion, I also left a rationale on why I think the arguments for keeping are weaker [2]. I don't see you provided any argument against my rationale, thus I don't know what to discuss. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've stated it on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aika tappaa already, as did the five users who said that it should not be deleted. You held that the two users who were to the contrary constituted a consensus. I guess you are using Alternative facts, and they 'won the popular vote.' If that is your position, then I will take this as the administrative denial it appears to be, so there won't be any claim that I had not exhausted failed to exhaust my appeals before going to WP:Deletion review. Best regards, 7&6=thirteen () 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I clearly stated my rationale in this edit. You still haven't even started to refute my arguments. I can't discuss anything with you unless you confront my rationale with some arguments. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your denial is understood. You need to justify your decision. You choose to not address my points. Your decision stands as made for the rationale you proffered. See you at WP:Deletion review. 7&6=thirteen () 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't address your points because you have not provided any points, except baseless accusations. I would be happy to discuss if you have provided any points. Your refusal to provide any evidence for your accusations is not understood. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The film was a large independent production, screened at a festival and sold in high street stores. It survived AfD in the Finnish wiki. There is no reason to delete from the English wiki. The consensus was to give the article the benefit of the doubt and keep it. I suggest you restore the article and reopen the discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    WP:GNG applies to independent films, and to films that were kept in Finnish Wikipedia too. Strength of arguments is measured thru Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The rationale given by the user who proposed deletion was the lack of notability. The only way to prove him wrong was to show reliable independent sources with significant coverage. The discussion was open for 25 days and no one even tried to provide any such sources. I said so when I closed the discussion, and I repeat that now. You don't seam to deny that. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    The consensus was that sources cited by the article, such as the sales listing and the database entry, meet the criteria of reliable, independent and in-depth. After you reopen the discussion you may give your opinion on the quality of the sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    So we are clear, I am not impugning Vanjagenije's motives, only his wrong-headed decision, which he apparently insists he will ride into the ground. He violated inter alia: Closing Discussions and Wikipedia:Consensus. 7&6=thirteen () 17:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    Checking my work, I assume the answer is still "No." If I am wrong, please let me know. Otherwise I will be going to WP:Deletion Review by the close of business today. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 15:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Still "No." Your call. 16:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As promised, discussion here to review your close of the AFD. 7&6=thirteen () 14:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dave Petrovic for deletion[edit]

Thanks for your help as this is my 1st Wiki Article. Dave Petrovic is a mentor and a great Australian Producer which is why I created the Article.

I know you must be extremely busy but I really appreciate your interaction. I've looked at similar Articles for other producers and made sure I linked all the appropriate references in an equal manner.

Please let me know if you still feel it's inappropriate and I'll try to fix it.

Thanks again.

Peter Kowalski (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter Kowalski: Our WP:Notability policy requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic in order to establish the notability of a subject (see WP:42). None of the links you provided contain any significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation[edit]

Does the {{edit semi-protected}} is necessary to for a sockpuppet investigation to move to SPI main space (whats that mean?), see this edit. Please tell me what should I know. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 06:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

@DRAGON BOOSTER: Opening new SPI case means creating new page in the WP:wikipedia namespace (in this example, that would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1832 Heritage). But, anonymous IP users are not able to create new pages in the Wikipedia namespace (nor in the main namespace). They can only create pages in talk namespace. So, the only way for an anonymous user to open an SPI case is to create it in the talk namespace and ask someone to move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok Thank you, but when such pages are listed here, can I remove the {{edit semi-protected}}, or leave them as they were. Edit summary of an Ip was "The SPI case is not going to ever open if the template is removed", is it true? regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 16:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
@DRAGON BOOSTER: If you remove the {{edit semi-protected}} template, then how can anyone find the page? And is there any reason to remove it? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No particular reason other than not semi protected. If I wanted to move the page to main namespace, Can I do it? or only Admins can do that. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 05:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC).
@DRAGON BOOSTER: It's better to leave it to admins or wp:SPI Clerks. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation[edit]

Hi. You recently helped me with this SPI. I've had to re-open it, as the user is back. I'd appreciate your help/comments with this one. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to redirect properly[edit]

Hi :) Concerning this wrong redirect, how can we fix this? It's wrong to leave it as it is. Thank you for your help. --Simoncik84 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Simoncik84: (a) It's not wrong; (b) Redirects are deleted via WP:RFD. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collective punishment[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collective punishment. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI case[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije, I have a question and a request regarding hard-block on here, would you please take a look? Bests,46.221.204.47 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Violation of My Rights[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije,This is absolutely a non sense behave of you being a senior here. Why you blocked my account? Please tell where are my multiple accounts? Please give respect to your juniors. I even never know the account you have investigated as my property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMZahidIqbal (talkcontribs) 10:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)