Jump to content

User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 14    Archive 15    Archive 16 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)


I'm not a sockpuppet

Please unblock me or w/e it is you've done. All I did was help a friend edit a page because he needed help. I'll let him know (Debeat) to sign his comment as well so that you can see we have different IP's. Thank you. 86.165.14.166 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC) GCTRL[reply]

You should log in to your account and make an unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOCUMI LABS

Hi, many thanks for reviewing my page creation about LOCUMI LABS. It is actually a very interesting and striving German startup which has gained significant media attention over the last two years. Would love to see it on wikipedia. Please advise why you think it is not interesting enough or what I have to do in order for it to satisfy wikipedia requirements. Many thanks, Darimana (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darimana: Whether the article is interesting or not is of no importance. It was speedily deleted under the WP:A7 criteria because there was no explanation of significance. You have to understand Wikipedia's WP:Notability policy. Only subjects that are notable are allowed to have articles in Wikipedia. Notability is established by citing reliable independent sources (see: WP:42). Your article did not cite any source. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I understand. There were plenty of sources and references in the first post I published. They were amended by the first reviewer. Shall I repost it with the references again for your review? Thanks, Daniel
@Darimana: Hm... I'm not sure that any of those "sources" were wp:reliable wp:independent sources. Some of the sources cited do not mention Locumi Labs at all. Some are self-published or paid reviews, so are not independent. If you want, I can un-delete the article and move it to the WP:drafts namespace, so that you can work on it. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyitra County

Hi,

unfortunately a very similar issue is raising in this article. The same subject entered with an edit warring with two other users, after the warning the page was restored and a discussion was started a long time ago, that is still ongoing. I joined in the discussion later. Despite the discussion/resolution did not end, the subject with misleading comment on edit logs again overriden with unconsensused and improper content the article, I restored it and asked him not to such acts by an ongoing discussion/resolution in the talk page. Despite he again overridden in with pretext by referencing on something that would just partially cover the topic but here also there are special ceses that were demonstrated also by other users in the talk page, despite the subject harmed the second time WP:BRD process and WP:CONSENSUS that is totally improper in an ongoing discussion because of edit warring. Please assess and protect this article to avoid such unfortunate happenings. I am very sorry some users always seek conflict instead of calm resolution. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Here is the existing consensus. Unfortunately, it is not respected and non-Hungarian names are repeatedly removed.
Maybe, User:Elonka who worked hard to achieve this consensus can also help us. Ditinili (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not think Vanjagenije cannot distuinguish between consensus of some conventions in some cases or consensus regarding a current page or a current section or a current edit or consensus building. As well, he might see in the talk page why the special cases we are discussing are different also regarding other distractions that is under discussion. Anyway this consensus is kept where applicable, moreover you are adding improper name also, on the other hand not even Hungarian names are present strictly, since only the reference on the pages are listed, moreover it is an article in a clear Hungarian context. You think these won't be noticed? You don't respected these above and the fact that 4 persons involved in the current issue has to agree to achieve consensus on the current section.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I will not make any assumptions who can distinguish what. Here is the existing consensus. Ditinili (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can again act like you don't understand, but please do not think others do not realize what you are doing.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
May I ask you "what am I doing"? --Ditinili (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were told - it was written more times - no need to repeat and to generate more stress.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I am for transparent communication. What do you mean exactly? Ditinili (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not flood this userpage. Read back what I have written there is nothing more to say, it is clear about the past approx. 3 months' history.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Do you mean something related to I also have to tell you that you should stop calling other users "anti-Hungarian" whenever they do not agree with you? Ditinili (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The average problem of your comprehension. Read back (again): Let's not flood this userpage. Read back what I have written there is nothing more to say, it is clear about the past approx. 3 months' history.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
No comment.Ditinili (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

SimonTrew

Hi Vanjagenije/Archive 15, I wonder if you could look into a matter that has me puzzled. On 5 October 2016 User: SimonTrew left me a garbled message that I cannot make any heads or tails of. This was the only time he posted on my talkpage and I thought at the time it was out of character. I only know that SimonTrew was heavily involved in wp:RfD, because he was involved in deletions of redirects that I created.

I don’t understand why SimonTrew has disappeared so suddenly. I don’t know if ADMINs have more insights into these matters, but thought I would give it a try. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: I don't know what that message is about. I also don't know how I can help you and what is my connection to the whole case. The only thing I could do is to look into SimonTrew's deleted user page. On 1 June 2016, an IP user (apparently SimonTrew himself) left a long message saying that he is "retiring". The explanation is long and pretty messed up. I only understood that it has something to do with deleting Neelix redirects. Several days later, SimonTrew account was blocked by Floquenbeam for "making legal threats". SimonTrew then used the same IP to request unblock ([1]). The account was unblocked on 14 September by the same admin (block log). That's all I know. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(indenting messed up, I'm actually answering Ottawahitech) Simon occasionally has trouble with typing; not sure the reason, and it's none of my business, but it usually goes away. He was just thanking you for thanking him for some edit he made (you thanked him for something on 10/5), and also appears to be complaining about the difficulty he is having typing that day.
From his talk page it appears he's suffered a loss in his family, which seems to explain his recent hiatus from WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comments from Aaron Janagewen

Dear Vanja, I would like to ask why you have removed the comments from Aaron Janagewen in the discussion I have started here? Best regards, PatrikN (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrikN: Because indefinitely blocked users (User:Janagewen) are not allowed to comment in discussions. That is what we call WP:block evasion. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for the information. I was just wondering and now I also learned some more about Wikipedia :-) Have a nice day! /PatrikN (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Murica

A redirect that you edited in the past has come up for WP:RFD. If you wish to participate in the discussion, then please do so. Thank you. 71.163.180.2 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

@Vanjagenije Just to let you know a Dispute resolution noticeboard has been opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.23Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources Taesulkim (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:X86

Hi Vanjagenije, in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen/Archive, maybe you can have a quick look at the IP I just blocked, and maybe at the history of Draft:J Barry Grenga. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

puzzled about something...

Shouldn't Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vexillographer have a link to the Archive->Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vexillographer/Archive like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChanceTrahan? I can't get at the Archive from the original page... Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: The page needs to be wp:purged. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PURGE it! Ok, thanks. I was looking at the edit history and stuff and it didn't seem quite right, I'll keep that in mind for next time. Heh, will wait - tincture of time and all that. Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Empresarial website

Dear Vanjagenije Please be informed that NIC.cr (Which runs the Academia Nacional), only make available .ac.cr domains for Universities listed by the CONESUP. So no one except the real University can registered such ac.cr domain (AC stands for academies, on University levels) since Costa Rica does not use dot edu extension. Take as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidad_San_Juan_de_la_Cruz You may contact www.nic.cr and get an official reply if you are not sure.Taesulkim (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taesulkim: As the one who introduces new content, it is your duty to establish consensus for that edit. Which web site belongs to the Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica has been debated for long time (see Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica, and especially the archives). I see that you left a message on the said talk page, albeit in a section titled "Request total deletion of the article", to which it has no connection. In that comment, you did not provide any reliable source to prove that the ac.cr domain belongs to the university. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cr Quote ac.cr:Entidades académicas (Restringido). Restringido its means RESTRICTED. Ac.CR its only available, after NIC.CR proves its a University approbed by the CONESUP (Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior)Taesulkim (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica § University website

Dear Vanjagenije I found this http://unesco.vg/whed/detail_institution.php?id=17738 Thats a UNESCO WHED listing for www.unem.edu.pl I hope this will help Taesulkim (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije Can you please leave some feedback on the Talk page, if you agree to display either www.unem.edu.pl (As listed on UNESCO WHED) or www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr since none is either agree or disagree in the talk page. Also notice the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PolandMEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PolandMEC as been concluded. Sorry for any wrong approach. I do not intend to be unpolite. Taesulkim (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Taesulkim (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One year ago today...

Wishing Vanjagenije/Archive 15 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Vanjagenije,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Why did you remove {{User:UBX/Twinkle4}} from my userpage with the edit summary, depreciated, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, removed: {{User:UBX/Twinkle4}} using AWB? The linked page has no information as to why this would be necessary.--Auric talk 11:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric: As you probably noticed, I reverted my edit immediately. It was a mistake. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fat Gorilla

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Vanjagenije.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Vanjagenije,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh

The re-deletion and orphaning of this template appears, at first glance, to be wheel-warring against consensus. Could you please explain? ~ Rob13Talk 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These too. ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Sorry. I taught the reason for undeletion was the fact that there were several transclusions. I removed all transclusions. What exactly is the problem? Why do you think the page shouldn't be deleted? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments at the MfD linked above. Basically, new page reviewer is a user right ensuring that pages aren't removed from the patrol list without proper review by an experienced editor. Nothing more, nothing less. Editors can still review new pages without the user right. I list several other reasons at the MfD, so it's worth a read, and those rationales were accepted by most (if not all) participants that happened upon the MfD before it was closed as speedy keep. ~ Rob13Talk 17:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for undeleting and restoring the transclusions. As a side note, would you mind starting a new TfD instead of re-opening the old ones? November 1st is already off the list of old discussions at this point, so it would be "lost" there. ~ Rob13Talk 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: I did not restore transclusions, and don't intent to. WP:NPR says that "most patrollers will notice that New Page Patroller userbox will have soon disappeared from their user pages". So, I guess those userboxes should be removed from userpages, as I did. You undeleted two of those templates (Template:User wikipedia/NP Patrol2 and Template:User NP Patrol and RC Patrol), but you did not remove the "This template is being discussed..." tag from those, although discussions were closed. That was confusing. After your undeletion, pages were tagged as being discussed, while discussions were closed. So, I also re-opened discussions, as they were closed on the (now wrong) assumption that pages were speedily deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPR is, of course, not above community consensus. There was no discussion made to delete these userboxes or remove all transclusions. Kudpung believes the new user right has eliminated new page patrolling entirely from those without the user right, but this is not at all what the community endorsed, and all discussions of that nature have been shot down very quickly. He unilaterally made decisions that the transclusions should be removed and the templates deleted, which is how that text got into NPR. In fact, the original RfC for new page reviewer experienced a rather violent reaction at the mere thought of removing the ability to patrol pages from new editors (in the form of that Twinkle).
I've closed the TfDs as wrong forum (userboxes are nominated at MfD, not TfD). As for the transclusions, I had hoped (and still hope) that this can all be self-reverted without a community ruckus. I strongly value your work on the project, especially as an administrator, but I'm worried this has all the hallmarks of something the community will take and run with. There have been several bad hubbubs recently that started over a lot less. I don't want to be at the center of another. If I have to take this to ANI, I will, but I'd much rather the damage just be undone. ~ Rob13Talk 17:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I can't really understand your point. Of course, I agree that anybody can review any page and try to improve it. But, all those userboxes that I removed from userpages explicitly link to Wikipedia:New pages patrol (just check {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}} and {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}}), and that page is explicitly about the user with New Page Reviewer user right. So, transcluding them on userpages of user who do not belong to the group is simply misleading. It's the same as putting the "administrator" userbox on a page of non-admin user. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A page which was boldly changed to be entirely about the user right, although it was originally about (and still mainly applicable to) the process of patrolling pages in general. It's not the fault of the users transcluding the userboxes that other editors significantly changed the first couple paragraphs of that page to repurpose it, and most of the page is still relevant to patrolling in general. Alternatively, the wikilink could theoretically be dropped, which is something that could be discussed on the template talk pages. Either way, we currently have 1,500 transclusions disruptively removed from userpages without any consensus for removing them. They were removed at high rates using AWB, sometimes as high as 50/minute by my count, which is a violation of WP:BOTASSIST. We even have an actual MfD which was in the process of finding clear consensus for keeping the most widespread of the userboxes on user pages, which was speedily kept because of a socking nominator. I'm not about to revert 1,500 edits myself, so this is likely heading to ANI in the absence of self-reverts. ~ Rob13Talk 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Michael Portillo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Portillo. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Weconnectinternational

User:Weconnectinternational who you blocked for being a vandalism only account, and whose page Draft:Elizabeth A. Vazquez (the president of their company) was deleted under G12, has copied and pasted the contents of her CV onto its talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Username Change - How to proceed?

Hello! I'm confused on how to proceed with this. Can you please clarify?

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC) AirstarAirwaysOfficial (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

AirstarAirwaysOfficial (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AirstarAirwaysOfficial: You should go to Wikipedia:Changing username (click the link) and follow instructions. What exactly is a problem? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Vanjagenije. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Niš Airport logo 2014.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Niš Airport logo 2014.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reexamine Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2607:fb90:2907:dc5f:0:35:ade6:9d01

You will find that the case it's supposed to be a "duplicate" of was closed out of process without being investigated in any way. There is clear evidence of a very straightforward case of puppetry requiring investigation, but because I originally listed the accounts in the apparently wrong order, the responding admin decided there was nothing there. This is incorrect, as the briefest of checks will confirm. —swpbT 18:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: What exactly do you think should be done? We have one blocked account and several inactive IPs. I don't see any ongoing problem. The order of accounts has nothing to do with it. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for your help, amigo :) TequendamaConsulting (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

new account

It won't let me login to my history_loverr account I don't know what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History loverr2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No title

hello,don't move my images on paul Vinzce by editing article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal philosopher (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit without destroying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal philosopher (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

respect yourself and don't give me orders on my talk page , if you see any violation on my articles you can discuss it with wikioedians without acusse me derictely . respect yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal philosopher (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had resolve all problems , I don't see any problem now , if u see it resolve it and remive templates !! look brother, if u are an administrator don't make people leave writing on wikipedia , some administrators are dictators , you had remove a category classicism in arcticle , images which u had remove it was not violated because it public .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Paul Vinzce
 – Vanjagenije (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 16967

Hi Vanja, I've updated UTRS 16967 if you want to follow-up. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo:Am I allowed to unblock? It's a checkuser block, so I'm asking for an explicit permission. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's always best to double check with the blocking CU. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Can you take a look? The link is [2]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, if you buy his explanation. Katietalk 00:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, could I please get some clarification as to why the user was unblocked, as I opened the SPI which resulted in the initial block. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DUCKISJAMMMY: Because those are two persons sharing the same computer. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who edit in the exact same manner? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DUCKISJAMMMY: One user proposed deletion of an article created by the other, that usually doesn't happen when accounts belong to the same person. Anyway, even if they were the same person, I don't think indefinite block is appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite as straightforward as that though, Ameer Abdullah ‎blanked the article, then added the AfD template to their own article. Only then did Sahil complete the nomination by creating the AfD discussion & adding it to the AfD log. Therefore both accounts had the same intention. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije @KrakatoaKatie: @Ponyo: @GiantSnowman: I'm sorry, but this unblock was unwarranted, the user is still using alternative accounts for disruptive behaviour & no it's not a sibling, this clearly shows it's the same person. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both (indef). If anyone thinks I've been hasty/harsh, feel free to un-block. GiantSnowman 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close a discussion of deletion

I've moved title of the Truth in Muhammad to Muhammadan Reality with new Sources empazises what I mean .--Bilal philosopher (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilal philosopher: WP:AfD template may not be removed until the discussion is closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biffstack

Vanja, when you have a moment, could you please clean this up? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Since I've found pings on SPI case pages to be unreliable, I figured I'd inform you here that I've responded to your request for additional information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1821. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FinanceOnWikipedia

The block came too fast to allow a decent case to be built, and in that sense I support an unblock, but I do believe we are being taken for a ride here. There is a little more evidence than has thus far been presented. Please keep an eye on this.--Atlan (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Cahk. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Boonkiet Chokwatana, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion

Information icon Hi, Vanjagenije. Thanks for your work on patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for 2017 GT3 Le Mans Cup, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion A7 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. There is an article for the previous season of this cup, 2016 GT3 Le Mans Cup, which includes multiple reliable sources; this indicates the potential of notability for the next season. Thanks! Appable (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Dear ____________ Stop replacing my articles. I worked hard on those, and you keep messing them up, Thank you.... Respect My Articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehawki1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timi Phoenix

I have added references to the page Timi phoenix. Kindly check for review again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatold (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to unblock request

I understand you reasoning for denying my unblock request (due to me making several destructive edits, 4 intentional, the rest not), but I would like to ask if it would possible for you to reduce my permanent blocking to a temporary one. That account is many years old and i understood what i did wrong when i was warned after making the destructive edits, and tried to redeem myself but got banned for a constructive edit after the destructive. Also i am not sure if you interpreted what i wrote correctly in my unblock request, and i did not make any false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveadynamicip (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article

Not delete of my article, this is my life. So, I create the Philippine brands not created. This is reviewed to be 5.3 million Wikipedia articles. -- cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 01:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar

Hi Vanja, can you please take care of the merging I requested in this case? There's a new case I'm working on (with lots of socks) that I will merge to it, but I don't want to do that until after you're finished and the case is archived. I can do the archiving after you're done and the SPI is closed. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sanie cu zurgălăi

Hello, Vanjagenije. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Sanie cu zurgălăi".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior

Violation of 3RR at Battle of Doiran (1918). Petty nationalist dispute regarding Macedonia's official name. 23 editor (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor: We have a noticeboard for these types of reports Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, it's best to make your reports there. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: WP:3RR was not violated by the user. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. It's been slightly over 24 hours. In any case, if he reverts you, he would have. 23 editor (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: The user made 3 reverts total. 4 reverts are needed to violate the WP:3RR. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Hello Vanjagenije, any hope that the visibility of this junk can be wiped from public view? I'm involved with the article at the moment and I really don't want to be visiting this possible "private grudge" every time I go backward or forward with revisions. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerking

I have a question for you. Are non-clerks allowed to perform uncontroversial clerical functions (archiving closed cases, marking cases as closed etc.)? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) generally no. Closing and archiving both involve checks that the clerks have experience with (tagging users, moving/merging cases, etc). It's probably best left to clerks. If you're interested in clerking, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks for the quick answer. I had assumed there would be something similar to WP:NAC for very obvious clerical actions. For what it's worth, I signed up for clerking some months and haven't heard anything back since. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I saw a conversation you were engaged in here with Favonian from some time ago. This might be of interest/relevance. Anyway, enjoy the holidays! --JustBerry (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior

Violation of 3RR at Battle of Doiran (1918). Petty nationalist dispute regarding Macedonia's official name. 23 editor (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor: We have a noticeboard for these types of reports Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, it's best to make your reports there. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: WP:3RR was not violated by the user. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. It's been slightly over 24 hours. In any case, if he reverts you, he would have. 23 editor (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@23 editor: The user made 3 reverts total. 4 reverts are needed to violate the WP:3RR. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Hello Vanjagenije, any hope that the visibility of this junk can be wiped from public view? I'm involved with the article at the moment and I really don't want to be visiting this possible "private grudge" every time I go backward or forward with revisions. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerking

I have a question for you. Are non-clerks allowed to perform uncontroversial clerical functions (archiving closed cases, marking cases as closed etc.)? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) generally no. Closing and archiving both involve checks that the clerks have experience with (tagging users, moving/merging cases, etc). It's probably best left to clerks. If you're interested in clerking, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks for the quick answer. I had assumed there would be something similar to WP:NAC for very obvious clerical actions. For what it's worth, I signed up for clerking some months and haven't heard anything back since. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I saw a conversation you were engaged in here with Favonian from some time ago. This might be of interest/relevance. Anyway, enjoy the holidays! --JustBerry (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveTransport block

Hi Vanjagenije! I thought I should give you my reasoning for the block of ActiveTransport. I didn't block the account initially, because I was hoping for a bit more evidence one way or the other. What led to the block was the very high level of proficiency (created the entire article in just a few edits, including an infobox, ref formatting, and templates) without having made any previous edits; a writing style similar to Mamadoutadioukone; and most importantly, this behaviour is one we've seen before from Mamadoutadioukone, where an article is deleted and a day or so later a new editor turns up, asks why it was deleted, and proceeds to recreate it. What was also unusual was a new editor who has barely interacted with anyone naming a serious of preferred admins, which certainly isn't something I'd expect. I'm happy to defer to your call either way, though. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Vanjagenije: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Kay O'Loughlin Kennedy

On 8th December I took part in a BBC project to add more entries for notable women. As only 17% of entries were for women, we were trying to redress that balance.

I work for an Irish charity which was set up by a woman called Kay O'Loughlin Kennedy in 1968. She did this from her house, with no experience of fundraising and set up an organization which now helps millions of people in 29 countries. Concern Worldwide is nearly 50 years old and although Kay recently died I wanted her to be remembered on Wikipedia as someone who gave her time for others and had a huge impact.

So I created a simple page for Kay O'Loughlin Kennedy

The same day you deleted this page. I do not know why. It is important that women are represented on Wikipedia and Kay is a notable woman. I was not trying to advertise for our charity, but had to mention it as this is WHY she is notable.

Please re-instate the page. Thank you, Ellen Ward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenWard (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @EllenWard: I appreciate your effort and I really think projects like this one are valuable. But, you have to understand that Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria called "WP:NOTABILITY". "Notability" in Wikipedia sense is different from the everyday meaning of that word. In Wikipedia, "notability" means that there are multiple reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject of the article (See WP:42 for more info). Those sources then need to bee WP:cited in the article so that the notability can be established. You created an article but did not cite any source at all. Without sources to prove notability, article may often be perceived as an advertisement. You can re-create the article, but only if you are able to cite several independent reliable sources with significant coverage. You can also use our WP:AfC process and let other users review your article before it's published. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Vanjagenije!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dublin Regulation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dublin Regulation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E Orthodox Church

Hi,

No need to complain about my removal of the tag. Neither that nor the tag is needed, as the info is very much common knowledge, easily verifiable from historical and news sources. So, I'm not interested in supplying those sources. If you think they're necessary, then I'll hope you have interest in that, and ask you please to go look some up and supply them. Delete the text if you feel strongly enough. I just think it's too easy for people to go bombing articles with tags all over the place, and that this is an example of that practice. If I have a complaint, that's what it is. But I've acted as far as I will on the article. I don't think the material itself warrants much work. Evensteven (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Vanjagenije!!
Hi Vanjagenije, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Vanjagenije: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GSS (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Season's Greetings

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Working with you has been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for all you do. GABgab 23:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc

Hi Vanjagenije, Last year, you closed the spi case regarding the same ip-jumping Turkish racist. Unfortunately, you and other checkusers/admins did not pay attention to this problem enough. That is the reason why he has been freely continuing his disruptive pov edits through cherry pickings, clear source falsifications, meatpuppetings, etc for more than 1 year. It is obvious that he is not here to build encylopedia. I have opened a new case last night. Could you please take a look at it? 46.221.179.225 (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha

The case has to be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashwing due to a mistake in my filing. I'd done the tagging correctly per Katie's note but I was waiting for a clerk/CU to move it (didn't want to interfere in that process). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.


Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. -- Dane talk 02:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!
Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for you to assess the consensus of an AFD discussion

Hi, since you are a Wikipedia admin, so pardon me, but do you have the time to assess the consensus in the AfD discussion?Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyber_Anakin

Thank you

Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Hi Vanjagenije, I am Bleckter, I lost my password and I can't login to my original account, please, help me, thanks. --Bleckter23 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For tackling the WP:SPI backlog. Nice work! Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vanjagenije. 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.

Andrija (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a copy of the talk page of the now deleted article "Cyber Anakin"

Hi, can you please give me a copy of the talk page of the now deleted article Cyber Anakin? I did use the Wayback Machine to archive it at one point but now it shows a robots.txt error.

I need the copy of the talk page urgently as I am writing a Reddit post regarding my recollection of the circumstances surrounding the deletion of the article. https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/

After you obtained the copy of the talk page, please make it as a subpage of my user page. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Espolin Johnson

I added G3 hoax to the deletion reasons - people born in 1982 don't usually play parts in films made in the 1940s and 1960s. In addition, he and the part he allegedly voiced in one film I checked aren't listed in the cast list at IMDb. All the films he couldn't have been in are listed on his IMDb page. There's something rotten in the state of Norway... Peridon (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Koha Ditore, published in Pristina, Kosovo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Koha Ditore, published in Pristina, Kosovo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khabargozari mehr

Could I get you to review your close of this SPI? Despite the technical evidence saying the accounts are unrelated, for two of the three accounts (Shams pasargad 2000 and Khabargozari mehr) there is too much behavioural evidence to ignore, in my opinion. First there's the overlapping, almost singular interest in Navid Faridi, a fairly obscure non-notable subject. Second, Shams pasargad 2000's first edit was to comment on this AfD. In my experience, that is not the behaviour of a new editor. Then there's the stylistic similarities in their writing. Both have a similarly tenuous grasp of English. Both consistently fail to capitalise things correctly, particularly the word "I". Finally, there's the frankly bizarre practice of creating new page to leave comments for other editors that intended recipient is incredibly unlikely to find. (Compare this to this.) Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Chance the Rapper being a Christain hip hop artist

I can find plenty of sources stating that he is a Christian, and that his faith has influenced his music of late. However, if the criteria to get on the List of Christian hip hop artists invloves writing specifically Christian songs, he hasn't released any yet. Was this what you were predicating your revert on? L3X1 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

... for this. I tried to add

Case was already closed but not archived yet, so this went wrong. I undid, waiting for archival. I you like, you can IAR and add the line to the closed case. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: That account is already blocked. There's no need to investigate anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there isn't. It's just for the record in the archives. I IARed and added ([3]). Feel free to undo - DVdm (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacking

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Country versus former country establishments

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sockpuppet

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)[reply]

I realize WP:CIR is important, but I suppose

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

@JustBerry: What do you expect me to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Just discussing. --JustBerry (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JustBerry: You fell bad about your own denial, or about my denial? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Collective punishment

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)[reply]

Axel Tuanzebe

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Saša Janković

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

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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.

Arbitration

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.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

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)[reply]

Sorry, but...

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)[reply]

Blocking Heracletus

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GBA?

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: I only endorsed the CU request in order to check whether the two cases should be merged, as I explicitly wrote [4]. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ljubiša Preletačević, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding account

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 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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

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)[reply]

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dave Petrovic for deletion

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

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).[reply]

@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)[reply]
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).[reply]
@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)[reply]
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).[reply]
@DRAGON BOOSTER: It's better to leave it to admins or wp:SPI Clerks. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of My Rights

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 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aika tappaa

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)[reply]

When I closed that discussion, I also left a rationale on why I think the arguments for keeping are weaker [5]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

edit history

Hi, I would very much appreciate it if you could help me with an edit history I would like to have deleted from user 212.159.70.138

Many Thanks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea Bow K (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tea Bow K: Hi! I don't know what you mean by "help me with an edit history I would like to have deleted from user 212.159.70.138". Edit history cannot be deleted, see WP:Edit history. I presume you want to delete some edits made by that IP user. You have to tell me what is the article and what exactly you want to remove. Again, edits cannot be deleted from edit history, but they can be WP:reverted if there is a reason. Also, to sign your posts, you should type 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end, not four grave accents (````) like you did. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halkman8 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC) My firts article

Hello, i just added sources at my first article , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romy_Papadea .. Could you check it once again ? :)

@Halkman8: None of the sources you added represents WP:significant coverage of the subject, and thus is not enough to prove the WP:Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to redirect properly

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)[reply]

@Simoncik84: (a) It's not wrong; (b) Redirects are deleted via WP:RFD. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, why do you say it is not wrong? The "province of Aosta" does not exist any more, and even so it does not correspond to the actual territory of the Aosta Valley, it cannot even be treated as a previous name of the same region. --Simoncik84 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Simoncik84: So what if it doesn't exist any more? Lot's of entities do no exist any more (Byzantine Empire for example), but still have articles. Someone may, for example, read an old book that mentions the Province of Aosta, and wants to learn more about it. He types "Province of Aosta" into the search field in hope of finding more information about it. Since there is no article about Province of Aosta (you are free to create one), best he can do is read about Aosta Valley. That is why Province of Aosta redirects to Aosta Valley. Please, read WP:Redirect to learn more about redirects. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Hi Vanja, can you do me a favor when you have time? There are two existing cases: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hakan3400 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gala19000. In a check I ran today, I found that Gala19000 and Hakan3400 are  Confirmed. The Hakan3400 case needs to be merged into the other as Gala19000 is the older account.

After the merge, please add the already-blocked Bzaatronto (talk · contribs · count) as a "new" puppet and put the case on hold. Ping me when you're done so I can make a finding and afterward the accounts can be retagged properly.

Let me know if any of this is unclear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the case with a finding. I think I retagged one account before I remembered I wasn't going to do that. Please retag whatever accounts need it. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SkaDate scr.jpg

Ol 2017 (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Hello, I would like to clarify the reasons for the removal of the file "SkaDate scr.jpg" from SkaDate page, notice said, that this file deleted due to non-compliance with copyright. However, this file is open shotom screen to access the service directly which was discussed in the article. Would be grateful for your help.[reply]

@Ol 2017: I don't know what an "open shotom screen" is. The file was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as a free file, while in reality it is a copyrighted work and you don't own copyrights. You uploaded it claiming it to be your "own work", while it is not. Uploading copyrighted files to Commons claiming them to be free for use is not only against Wikipedia rules, but is also illegal. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my edit (Draft:Konrad Hennemann)

Just wanted to mention that your reason (Not valid CSD) for Draft:Konrad Hennemann that has not been edited since 2015 has been accepted by other admins as valid multiple times before for drafts similar. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Sorry. I only accept speedy deletion criteria listed at WP:CSD. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_15&oldid=1092091244"