User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 10

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
I refer to your decision at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329. I have put these comments on the page but will repeat them here as otyherwise I am not sure that you will see them. I reported Dino nam for edit-warring, not 3RR. I don't see how this "report is stale" as I made the complaint on 31 October and you looked at it on 2 November. Your comment that "both of you stop warring and try to reach a consensus" ignores the fact that I reported Dino nam for edit-warring and have tried to resolve this on the talk page. What is the point of making an edit-warring complaint if this is how its supposedly resolved? I look forward to receiving your response. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I have removed your post there, because you shouldn't be editing the archived version. It is true that users can edit-war without breaching 3RR. However, on both the pages you linked, Dino nam had performed two reverts, separated by 22 hours or so. That was not near enough for me to block. Furthermore, you, too, had performed more reverts than was ideal. Finally, please take a look at the WP:Blocking policy. It says that blocks should be preventive, not punitive. I could not have reasonably blocked Dino nam on 2 november for reverts on 31 October: because that would have been punitive. Therefore, the report was stale, when I looked at it. Now I would certainly agree that the report should have been acted upon sooner: but this is a collective failing of Wikipedia, and a symptom of an admin shortage, and hardly my own shortcoming: I closed the report soon after I saw it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at Dino nam's talk page and block history you will see that this is a regular pattern of his POV-pushing style. I tried to revert back to the established consensus but you say I "had performed more reverts than was ideal" It seems that there is no point in complaining about edit-warring on the Admin Noticeboard if it isn't a 3RR and given the boomerang potential it all seems rather stacked. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. As somebody who has had their share of reports declined, believe me, I know how you feel. I urge you to consider the possibility that bad behavior is not always sanctionable, and that the system might still be generally worth investing time in, even if it didn't give you exactly the result you wanted. Vanamonde (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

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)

Punjabi dialects and protection
Hi, you probably remember the recent discussion at User talk:RegentsPark, which resulted in some articles on Western Punjabi dialects receiving semi-protection + pending changes. Do you think the same should also happen for Derawali dialect‎, Multani dialect‎, Thalochi dialect‎ and Jatki‎? After I cleaned up the leftovers of the edits of languageXpert and his socks, a diligent IP has turned up reverting my edits. Something similar appears to be also happening at Chhachi dialect‎, as its protection has expired. – Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * my apologies for the delay, it took me a while to get onto a device which had both decent and gave me access to the admin buttons. I've applied some combination of semi-protection and PC protection to the bunch. Thanks for cleaning stuff up. I do notice that there is still substantial amounts of unsourced content in several of those articles. Is this something that can be fixed easily? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, there is still a lot of unsourced content there. I've asked help about the wordlists at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics (and if no-one responds I'll remove them). As for the rest of the unsourced statements, I might be able to find sources that support them as I make my way through the literature, but I guess until I find anything I should remove the dubious bits. Some of that could have come from the Linguistic Survey of India, which has the advantage of being available online, but the data there is over a century old, the coverage is uneven (in extent and quality), so I'd be weary of using anything from there unless it has been commented on in a more recent and more reliable source. – Uanfala (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this user Uanfala has no respect for Move request decisions, move review decisions, Talk page consensus, He had been spoiling Language hierarchy in autocratic manner. POV based edits based on eliminating all Punjabi dialects and declaring them a new language. If he faces any smallest resistance then he hides behind protections. Please visit his contribution page to see how many users he is fighting for his objective single point agenda. which is so egoistic after he felt that he has lost Talk page different forums. If you don't trust me just visit his contribution page. He will never remove un sourced stuff which suits his particular point of view but removes sourced data with remarks bogus sources. not reliable sources etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.104.85 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to be able to edit semi-protected articles, you can create an account. If you're unhappy with a particular user's editing, I guess there are several things that you can do, but WP:ANI is always an option. – Uanfala (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If I will create account you will then hide behind SPI bcoz u know 39 series was once used by Languagexpert, Maria0333, Touristerman, Nangaparbat, and argument less autocrats like you use that when you start loosing on valid argument talk pages. If you have some ethics left then respect talk page consensus and stop traping others in fake SPIs and page protection. You are changing long standing articles against talk page consensus just bcoz of your experienced status.


 * dating for bot: Vanamonde (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Taslima Akhter
Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Popular election
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular election. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Amacuzar River
Hello Vanamone93, my name is Diego Alberto Rivera and I am a student from the Tecnologico de Monterrey Campus Ciudad de Mexico and I´ve been working in an article about the Amacuac River. I would like to know your opinion about it and if you could correct minor errors. Thank you for your attention and I hope to hear from you. Here is a link to the workspace where the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thelmadatter/Amacuzac_River. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivera0997 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm happy to look the article over at some point, but to be honest I'm not sure why you are turning to me, because I have no particular experience or expertise either with rivers or with that area of Mexico. Surely there must be someone who can help you better at WikiProject Rivers? Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Was "Toby Miller (Snowboarder)" Page Deleted
I was wondering why the page "Toby Miller (Snowboarder)" was removed? I realize now that the social media links are not allowed but I was wondering if there were other reasons for the deletion? Could I also have the text from the article sent to me? Thank you!

Ptkindt (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)PTKindt
 * Hi there, Ptkindt. The page was deleted because in the form that it was in, it seemed purely promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. In addition, even if the neutrality issues were to be fixed, I am highly doubtful whether this individual is notable. Nonetheless, I have gone ahead and restored the text (minus the social media links) to User:Ptkindt/Toby Miller, where you are welcome to work on it at your leisure. However, please remember that it should not be moved back to article-space without the issues I've mentioned being fixed. Nor should it languish in your userspace, untouched. I will be monitoring it to see how things go. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

GRAPHC
Vanamonde93, can you please explain why you deleted the page The National Centre for Geographic Resources & Analysis in Primary Health Care (GRAPHC) The Centre is an academic resource for researchers in Australian health. there is no blatant promotion only simple factual explanations of the functions that are associated with the centre. Can you please highlight the areas that you consider to be advertising. Constructive observations only please. Pauljwk (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Talk Page Stalker) Hi, I'm not Vanamonde, I see your article in your sandbox. It looks like you had no credible assertion of notability, since all of your sources were published by members of the organization's staff. Could you try to add some independent sources that discuss GRAPHC? Jergling (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Jergling, Thank you for you feedback. this is the 1st time I've used Wikipedia. I will include some independent sources that discuss GRAPHC? Pauljwk (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots
It reads that "Other sources estimate that over 2000 people died.[9]" However this source has no such estimate, this is a wrong information. Can you please suggest how could I edit this? Sant2910 (talk)
 * The source says "In fact, the total number of casualties was most certainly over 2,000 dead" (page 16). --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That is just a hunch, no evidence given. Even New York times says that total death is about 1000 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/06/world/asia/modi-gujarat-riots-timeline.html?_r=0#/#time287_8192 Sant2910 (talk)


 * Also, on the right top box it still shows "Death(s) 790 – 2,500 Muslims, 254 Hindus, 223 more missing". The referenced article reads "the total number of casualties was most certainly over 2,000 dead", not Muslim casualties. Sant2910 (talk)
 * As RP just showed, the source supports exactly the content in question. If you want to question the veracity of the source, go ahead, but this is not the place for it: and in general, we weight scholarly sources over media sources. If the infobox says something different from the body, bring it in line with what is said in the body. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK.. got it. Do you suggest to delete the "2500 Muslim" death in the infobox? I am not deleting anything, just added a "citation needed".Sant2910 (talk)
 * No, don't delete it, bring it in line with the source as I did in the body, and remove the tag. Vanamonde (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It's much appreciated, CaroleHenson, and thanks too for sticking with the review process. Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Marina and the Diamonds
Many thanks for adding the protection to the page. I was wondering if this edit perhaps needs to be revdel'd? Karst (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've rev-del'd three revisions: better safe than sorry with BLPs, and there is no hint of constructiveness in any of those edits. Vanamonde (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Karst (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidney Cordle
Why did you delete Sidney Cordle on 4th October 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.164.114 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because this discussion found the topic not to be notable. Vanamonde (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Soledad Alatorre
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The article in question is BarlowGirl. Take care. --LABcrabs (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

EKTA movie page deletion
hi the page created with Ekta movie is not fake. The movie is under process. please find the links below. thank you.

http://www.raagalahari.com/news/82586/romantic-thriller-ekta.aspx

http://www.indiaglitz.com/ekta-movie-shoot-in-progress-telugu-news-168318.html

http://www.tollywood.net/topstories/Ekta-to-release-in-December?fromNewsdog=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanreddydir (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sumanreddydir: I'm afraid I've deleted quite a few pages recently. What was the exact title you are referring to? That will help me explain why it was deleted. Also, please remember to sign your talk page messages. Vanamonde (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi please check the link of page which you have mentioned for deletion and do the needful. Articles_for_deletion/Ekta_Movie --Sumanreddydir (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it wasn't even me who deleted this page...please read the deletion discussion carefully, and try to understand what people are saying. Nobody is saying the movie is "fake"; but unless you have reliable sources to support its existence in substantive form (and the links you've provided here don't really count) we cannot show that the film is notable. Vanamonde (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Agneya Singh
Why has the Agneya Singh page been deleted? It was created after much research. Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmForum61 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied at the undeletion request. Vanamonde (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Issue not resolved. Awaiting copy to re-edit. Please let me know the procedure to access the same - Vanamonde Thankyou! If possible please restore the page and I can re-edit the same in order to remove any unambiguous promotional material. I was a part of the team that researched the page and it will be hard to recompile all the ref and source lists.  FilmForum61 (talk 11:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to restore the page: what I am doing is to provide you a copy in your userspace: ie, it will not come up in a generic google or Wikipedia search, and is not an "article" as such. Once you have fixed it, you will have to move it back to the article-space, and I strongly recommend using the WP:AFC process. In any case, it should not be moved back without substantial improvement, or it will likely be deleted under WP:CSD. Here is your copy: User:FilmForum61/Agneya Singh. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Will do the needful. FilmForum61 (talk 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Agneya Singh and User:FilmForum61/Agneya Singh
I just saw these 2 separate articles. I guess this will need to be histmerged to preserve attribution. Would it be possible to perform a histmerge here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging who seems to have just added a histmerge tag for another article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I was responding to a request at the help-desk after a C&P move, Agneya singh to Agneya Singh. I was not aware of more content in a user page. Eagleash (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a mess, it would appear. I userfied Agneya Singh at the request of the person who created it, after having deleted it while closing the AfD. I was unaware that the same user had gone and re-created the same page at a different title. As it stands, Agneya Singh is eligible for WP:CSD, and I am inclined to delete it as such, since the user has committed to improving the draft that is in their userspace. I am not aware of the technicalities of histmerging, but I don't think it can deal with two different drafts being edited in parallel, and with different content. Vanamonde (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I was also unaware of an AfD! I agree the page should be deleted. Can the redirect be deleted also? That would leave the userpage draft to be worked upon till ready. Eagleash (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my! I didn't know about an AFD. This is a mess. I guess the current article in mainspace and the redirect can be safely deleted then. Btw, both of you pinged my doppelgänger account lol. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn, no, I was confused. Eagleash, Lemongirl942, my mistake: it was not an AfD, but a CSDG11 deletion. Too many questions about deleted articles on my talk page, I got them mixed up. So I don't know if there is a clean solution to this, other than deleting it under WP:IAR (after all, it was clearly created when the author got impatient waiting for my response to their userfying request). Alternatively, if somebody wants to check the version in article space and verify that it is neutral, we can just dispose of the userspace draft. Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The 'new' page is an improvement IMO but I would welcome a second opinion as I'm not sure I'm a very good judge of this sort of thing! Eagleash (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there might be a solution. I noticed that Agneya Singh and User:FilmForum61/Agneya Singh don't have any overlapping history - that is Agneya Singh was edited after the latest edit on User:FilmForum61/Agneya Singh. So this can be histmerged perfectly. (Per WP:RUD I don't think we can dispose the userspace draft and keep the article).
 * As for the redirect Agneya singh, I guess this can be safely deleted - I mean this is a new redirect and the content is duplicated anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that might be the most elegant way out. I'm not confident enough to perform the histmerge myself: Eagleash, would you mind modifying the tag appropriately? I've disposed of the redirect. Vanamonde (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have modified the histmerge tag accordingly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks both. Eagleash (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation PBFORTUNE
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation PBFORTUNE you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation PBFORTUNE
The article Operation PBFORTUNE you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Operation PBFORTUNE for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation PBFORTUNE
The article Operation PBFORTUNE you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation PBFORTUNE for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shafiqa Habibi
Hello! Your submission of Shafiqa Habibi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Muzoon Almellehan
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Narendra Modi
In of Narendra Modi you introduced two ref name errors by referencing "Bobbio" and "Gujarat Model" without defining them. Please fix. Anomalocaris (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. My apologies, the pitfalls of editing in your userspace...Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Anomalocaris (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
You have approved an application for deletion for my article as far as I can see this although in my article everything has been listed according to the standards of Wikipedia. I have added time articles that have written about the person as well as his music works that have been used in filmtrailers. Alone a suspicion of "hoax" or "vandalism" is no reason for a deletion according to the Wikipedia rules. To post a deletion even if the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia is against the guidelines. I will now send an email to the Wikipedia support because even though my article meets the standards you have the application first deleted and then re-adjusted. Will report it to the support, which obviously has not been checked before you have revised the application. My Article is the Sadzid Husić --Zylo-Cen (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done nothing of the kind. I declined a request for speedy deletion arguing that the page was vandalism, and I tagged the page as requiring more references. I have done nothing else to that page. You would be better advised to find some reliable sources covering the subject of the article, and rewriting it based on those: then an admin will probably remove the speedy tag, rather than deleting the page. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I have understood but the article of me corresponds to the Wikipedia guidelines and the user repeatedly makes the request for the speedy deletion. --Zylo-Cen (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but at present, it does not conform to our guidelines. It needs to be cited to reliable sources. This is necessary to show that it is not a hoax, but also necessary in general to meet our policy on verifiability. Youtube videos do not count as reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request
Hi Vanamonde,

You're the only admin I'm familiar with, and I don't know the official channel for requesting this. I accidentally edited while logged out and exposed my IP. It's not critical, since it's just my office and I don't have anything to hide contribution-wise, but I don't like people geolocating me. Do you have revision deletion permissions to help undo that? Diffs:

Thanks! '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter|undefined 22:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * my apologies, I was busy in RL. It seems to have been taken care of already. Just fyi, I'm an admin but not an oversighter: so I can delete revisions so that only admins can see them, but only the WP:OTRS system will let the diffs be suppressed so that none but oversighters can see them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that you hadn't been online for a few hours when I asked, but wasn't in any rush. Thanks for the info, and thank you to whoever suppressed it. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter|undefined 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Address Collection
Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Page Deletion
Will you please tell me about posting article on wikipedia for costum designer category?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.160.221 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your question, but let me try to answer it anyway. If you mean that you want to create an article about a costume designer: First, if this is a costume designer that you are connected to in real life in some way, please read WP:COI; creating such an article is a bad idea. Second, please read WP:N and WP:GNG to understand our standard for what should be included on Wikipedia and what should not. If you still have a topic that you don't have a conflict of interest on and are confident is notable, then you need to create an account, because anonymous users cannot create articles. Even so, I would recommend using the WP:AFC process to create the page you're interested in. I hope this helps. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise on Ruben Landon Dante, I will rewrite the article in my own words or request him to edit or make a page. He has been requested a few times I think but he had an issue with his stance on LGBT or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TradingWizards (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * TradingWizards, as I said above, please do not ask this person to edit a page about themselves, as that creates a conflict of interest. Likewise, if you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the page. Vanamonde (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Marvellous Spider-Man  06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DYK
Vanamonde93, you were listed in the non-admin section of this, so I started a cut/paste of you from this to the admin section, but then realized I had no idea where you'd want yourself to be placed. I hope you don't mind that I'm handing this over to you half done; I started by cutting a wiki-wide blocked user who was blocked back in April, and then saw your name and cut you as well as part of a move that I realized I didn't know how to complete. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * no worries. I've added myself to the "admins willing to help" section, since I'll be around but my activity will be limited by RL in the next few weeks. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pizzagate
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pizzagate. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Born This Way (song)
Hello, Vanamonde93. I would like to request renewal of protection on the Born This Way (song) article due to recent disruptive edits by IP users. Thank you. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Semi'd three months. Vanamonde (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Shafiqa Habibi
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Matt Rissell
Spiffydave (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know what changes I need to make to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines for the Matt Rissell page you just deleted. There is no copyright infringement and I'm not trying to write anything promotional. He's our CEO. He's a public figure. I tried to base the listing on other CEO pages I've seen.

Thanks for your help as I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and it's a pretty cryptic system.
 * Hi there, . There's a few things you should keep in mind. First, any article needs to be compliant with our policies on notability and neutrality. Your article needs to be supported by reliable sources, which demonstrate that the subject is notable. Secon, even if a source were in the public domain, it is best practice to paraphrase the source in your own words when writing here, while sticking to the meaning of the source. Finally, if the subject of this article has a connection to you in the real world, it might be a good idea not to create that particular article, because in that case you might have a conflict of interest; in any case, you should read WP:COI before going further. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
For helping fight BLP vandalism! -Darouet (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * since you asked to alert you if IP hopping occurred, this new IP has carried out the same vandalism as the one you blocked earlier. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page. I will note that the page seems to me to be slightly promotional in nature: if it is a topic you are knowledgeable about, it would be great if you could take a look at it. Vanamonde (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a little knowledge, and made one contribution that I hope was measured, a while back. I don't feel comfortable getting more involved in the article: the university community is small, all things considered. -Darouet (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection of Haredi Judaism
Hi Vanamonde. I see that you've fully protected Haredi Judaism, but it seems that you didn't add Template:pp-dispute to the page. Was that intentional? If not, could you please fix it? Thanks! Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's usually handled automatically, as far as I know, but I've gone ahead and added it. Vanamonde (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion-rights movements
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment
You do realize that declassified CIA documents are cited with attribution as a matter of routine across Wikipedia, right? And that the material you removed is long-standing, highly informative, and has caused no previous controversy? Okay, fine; if you think mass deletion somehow improves the encyclopedia, great job!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are cited elsewhere to contradict criticism of the CIA by secondary sources, that is a problem. There are less controversial circumstances where they might actually be useful; but you have read WP:PRIMARY, haven't you? You don't have much of a leg to stand on here. If you want to put that argument back in, find a secondary source examining those documents and reaching the same conclusion: otherwise, it is original research. And do I need to remind you that "they are used as a source in the Trump-Putin kerfuffle" is an even worse argument than "they are used elsewhere"? Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates which misrepresent policy
Hey. Just a heads up that I speedy deleted Encouragment, which you had mentioned you considered IAR deleting. We actually have a CSD criteria (WP:T2) for templates that blatantly misrepresent policy, as this one certainly did. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, didn't know that. Thanks. Never been well-versed with the more obscure CSD criteria. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Women's health hook in Queue 4
Vanamonde93, I was wondering if the comma could be removed from the hook you just modified in Queue 4. I've read it over, and the comma seems to be interrupting a simple sentence, dividing it into two halves that are not independent clauses. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you're right, I've removed it. The comma was added in during the discussion with a comment, and I didn't realise that the reasoning was not correct. Vanamonde (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Your account is now active, please refer to the e-mail for more information. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request to lower protection
Hello, you recently fully-protected 2016 United States presidential election recounts for a week over a content dispute. I would like to request that this protection be lowered to semi-protection so that regular editors like myself can continue update the article, since it covers a current event. As the content dispute you intervened over is the only significant, disruptive event to occur with the article in the past week, and the users responsible have been permanently blocked for sock-puppetry, I am reasonably confident that lowering the protection will not immediately invite additional malicious attacks. Joshbunk (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ but please note that everybody on that page is on a bit of a tight leash: hints of an edit-war, and somebody is likely to slap full-protection on it again. Vanamonde (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, and thanks. Joshbunk (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And you are lynching Negroes
Would you reconsider this decision? I consider this to be the version that should be up there. It's not that different from the one two years ago. I just don't feel like arguing with a couple of ediotrs that are pushing a POV. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have full-protected the page. Protection, though, cannot deal with POV pushing and source misrepresentation beyond a point, and you will have to sort it out on the talk, possibly by inviting more scrutiny via an RFC, DRN, or a post to the relevant noticeboard. Vanamonde (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --evrik (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked for an extension. --evrik (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting?
Heyo, talk page stalkers. I happened to look back at my RFA today, and I found it an interesting exercise to examine where many of my vociferous opposers have ended up. Would-be oppose number 2 indeffed as a sock during the RFA. Oppose number 3 topic-banned from their topic of choice, then indeffed for socking shortly after. Oppose number 7 indeffed for socking a week later. Oppose number 13 disappeared into the aether, never seen again. Oppose number 14, likewise. Would be oppose number 17 indeffed as a sock during the RFA. Oppose number 17 indeffed, essentially for competence issues. Oppose number 21 also disappeared into thin air, whence he came. Oppose number 26 indeffed for socking. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here? And is it wrong to feel a trifle self-satisfied? Vanamonde (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks don't like you. Go Barefoot :) --regentspark (comment) 13:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Such a fanbase exists probably because your work in contentious area(s). Sad and predictable that some people oppose just because they've had a dispute with the candidate. Feel good about it and one of the reasons to continue doing what you're doing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone forgot to add the lock after protecting a page. :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== Please comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Dashavatara
Some good edits; some bad. This month, two edits were accepted; two others reverted. Would this justify PC extension? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is precisely the situation in which PC is required: some constructive IP edits (so semi-protection would be bad) and some non-constructive (so unprotecting wouldn't be great, either). I have therefore extended the protection on the page for a further 6 months. Vanamonde (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Shehla Zia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coming of Age in Karhide
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coming of Age in Karhide you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Template request and reminder
Hi, there. Would you mind addressing these issues that are mentioned? These templates are causing confusion which needs to be reviewed for deletion and replacement.

There are four templates that needs the attention: Template:Current APEC Foreign Ministers The alternate Template:Current APEC foreign ministers Template:Current APEC Central Bank Governors Template:ASEAN Central Bank Governors

Regarding the APEC templates, there are two foreign ministers templates that are causing confusion as well and needs to be reorganized or perhaps merged in order make it more organized and please consider some of the discussions being made as these two foreign ministers template are legitimate as well concrete and had a purpose. (see this page:the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page)

As for the APEC and ASEAN central bank governors templates, it would be better to retain them and at least just try to resize the caps of those titles. These information on these templates are likewise legitimate, accurate and concrete. Please make it ASAP as possible and just ensure that these newly revised templates mentioned will be retained. Same request was passed to User talk:BU Rob13 but no response. Saiph121 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Saiph121, I don't think I can be of much help. I am personally of the opinion that these templates are a form of WP:CRUFT. There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of international groupings. Very few of them receive any sustained attention in reliable sources as groups, which is a point you do not seem to understand. Even if the information in those templates is accurate (and I'm fairly sure it is accurate), that is not an argument to keep it. Or to make the same argument a different way: if we had templates listing central bank governors and foreign ministers for every international grouping, we would have hundreds of templates, which would be rather silly. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have a point but the only thing is that the Foreign ministers template has a reliable and accurate sources that they are part of the APEC ministerial meetings as a group consistent with the finance ministers and noting that foreign ministers had a role serving as the chairpersons in these ministerial meetings of APEC. Why would you still considered the foreign ministers template as a WP:CRUFT in the first place despite all the reliable information and sources proving it? It's a matter of argument proving that is right. Saiph121 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)