User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 12

Rolta India Page Deleted
Hi, I noticed that the Rolta India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolta_India was deleted due to unambiguous promotion or advertising. May I know the parts of the content that look promotional. I had a chat with wiki moderators while posting the article and got it verified and they seem to be fine with it. Is there a way I can restore the page. If yes what are the areas I can improve on. I am new to wikipedia and any kind of promotional content here was purely unintentional. Awaiting your response Jovian 13 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of any conversations, but when I look at the deleted page, it was promotional in nature, intentionally or otherwise. I could go into great detail, but in short the issue is that it read like a resume for the company, rather than an encyclopedia article. If you try again, you should avoid all uses of the company's website, avoid corporate jargon, avoid providing details that serve no purpose besides promotion (quality benchmarks, ISO ratings, office addresses, trivial awards (so most awards)), and stick to content that can be supported by WP:RS. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Betty Tebbs
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!
Hi Vanamonde93, thank you very much for supporting my project to reduce the Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement! --Gnom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reza Aslan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reza Aslan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the thorough review of Wehrmachtbericht. The article is much improved for it! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Post: Mohammed Sani Haruna
@Vanamonde93: Thank you very much for your understanding and responses on the article Mohammed Sani Haruna, i appreciate and i undertake to abide by the rules to have the article properly edited to address the promotional concern. your guide and assistance to achieve it, is highly solicited too. kindly advice further on the steps to take and what to take out, to avoid any promotional content.Francisozohu (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisozohu (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, I have restored and moved the draft into your userspace. Please read up on WP:N, WP:V WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, edit the page to make it conform to those guidelines, and then use the WP:AFC process to submit your article. Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by IP hopper
Hey, sorry for the constant barrage of edits on your Talk page. I am facing a unique situation where I am being constantly harassed by the IP hopper. He/She goes through my daily edits and undo's without any explanation. Some of these edits include removing vandalism, un-cited content and someplace added cited content. I can give you diffs and more proof. Here are few of the 15 odd examples:, ,. I am not sure how to deal with this without violating 3RR. I am also pretty sure it is the same IP hopper since IP's match to the same VPN being used earlier. Any ideas how to resolve this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Much as I'd like to help, I'm afraid I can't think of very much to do. We cannot very well protect every article you edit: and blocking an IP hopper is not much use. If the IP were posting disruptively on your talk page I could protect that, but I don't see that happening. The only possibly useful advice I have is to raise this on ANI, and see if wiser minds than mine can think of something. Sorry I can't be of more help, Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes raising it at ANI would be great. Maybe someone else has faced this problem before and can provide suggestions. One suggestion I had which I think is not possible would be to hide my contributions pages since he/she uses that. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any technique to do that, sorry. Vanamonde (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Kalhor tribe dispute


On a dispute about repeated deletion of inserted citations by a user, I raised the issue in WP:3O. The request moved by you and I don't know why. Could you please help in this dispute. Best Shadegan (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was removed because a) there were more than two people involved, and b) I left a comment on the dispute anyway: did you not read it? The gist of it was that you need to provide more detail with respect to the sources you were using: and please keep the discussion to the talk page of that article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre
— Maile (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Brian Cain
@Vanamonde93:

I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia. Would like to reach out regarding a page you formerly deleted about Brian Cain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cain

In an attempt to create this, it is evident that this was previously deleted per lack of notability.

Could you please take a look at the following resources which reference Brian and let me know what else might be needed to get this profile created:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/110014572/strong-body-and-mind-fuel-cubs-jake-arrieta/

http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/build-mental-toughness

http://usatodayhss.com/2016/recruiting-column-interview-with-brian-cain-peak-performance

https://dailytitan.com/2017/02/cal-state-fullerton-baseball-rick-vanderhook-basketball-dedrique-taylor-womens-soccer-demian-brown-pregame-prep-psychology/

http://martialarts.about.com/od/mmaandufc/a/mentaltoughnessmma.htm

http://www.dbknews.com/archives/article_ff2ebc78-c9de-11e3-af5d-0017a43b2370.html

http://fcfighter.com/post/john-makdessi-%E2%80%9Cif-i-can-take-down-mark-bocek-or-georges-st-pierre-when-we%E2%80%99re-in-sparring-i-can-take-down-sam-stout%E2%80%9D

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/02/12/cain-bulldogs-break-blocks/

http://www.sportsnet.ca/blogs/mma/gsp-feels-rouseys-title-loss-pain-like-no-other/

http://www.sagacombat.com/blog/meditation-and-mental-training-in-combat-sports/

http://www.omaha.com/sports/cws/cws-blog/they-said-it-transcript-from-vanderbilt-lsu-tcu-cal-st/article_71795cb0-113d-11e5-8886-570031d19095.html

http://cscca.org/events/speakers?job=bio&id=57&even_id=71

Jholiday382 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no particular expertise in this particular area; and honestly, I don't have the time to dig into each of those sources in great detail. After a cursory look they seem borderline at best; and considering the fact that this article has been deleted via a deletion discussion, I would generally want better sources. You should look for things that are a) independent of the subject, b) have editorial oversight, and c) are significant publications; ie not simply the local newspaper of a town of 100 people (for example). Additionally, should you try to recreate this at all, you should probably use the WP:AFC process, else you run the risk of being seen as disruptive. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between Creating an article? Is there anyway I could receive access to create the page for Mr. Cain?

47.185.10.206 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference between creating an article and what? Using the AFC process? AFC requires you to create a draft (ie the title would be something like "Draft:Brian Cain") and you would then follow the instructions at WP:AFC to submit it. The difference is that unless and until the draft is approved, it is not generally visible as a Wikipedia article. IP addresses cannot create articles; you must log in to do so, and since you seem to be the same person as the account that posted above, I would strongly suggest you log in; it is quite easy to fall foul of WP:SOCK otherwise. Additionally, given your many posts about Cain, at this point it looks like you have a conflict of interest with respect to him: in which case you should read that link, and probably avoid creating any such article. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

YGM
Karst (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rising Phoenix World Championships
Rising Phoenix World Championships should NOT have been deleted. It is the official successor to the Ms. Olympia competition, making it the highest ranking female bodybuilding competition on he planet. Pls un-delete now. AHC300 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * AHC300: The fact is that the article was PRODed, and nobody bothered to contest the PROD, which is what you should have done. The deletion was therefore based in policy. Moreover, if the event is as important as you say it is, it should be easy to find independent, reliable sources that describe it. The sources that were in the article when I deleted it were far from sufficient. Given that, I am not willing to simply undelete it. I would be willing to move it into your draft space, if you are willing to commit to not moving it before fixing the issues I mentioned. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Given that, I am rather reluctant to undelete it: I would much rather you worked on a userspace draft, which I am willing to provide you with, so that these problems may be addressed. Otherwise, it is more than likely that somebody will simply take it to AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Annette Toutonghi
I noticed that you deleted Annette Toutonghi due to PROD and then saw that it was created again by the same editor, once again being put on PROD. Would you delete it again and possible Salt the article to get the editor to stop creating the same page multiple times? GamerPro64 18:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done so; but just a minor note, that a BLPPRODed article cannot simply be deleted, but needs to go through the 7 day waiting period, even if it is a recreation. I deleted it under CSDA7. Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Integrated Technology Group
Hallo, as you deleted Integrated Technology Group you might be interested to see the new article Integrated Technology Group (ITG). The correct article title is salted. Pam D  13:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this page as well, it's rather obviously promotional. I'm mulling an indef block for promotion for the user. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo Armas
Hello, Vanamonde93 - I hope the copy-edit I've just completed meets with your approval. I am now re-reading the article to see if there are any issues I'd like to ask you about.

1) One is near the beginning of Carlos Castillo Armas. Would you take a look at these sentences?


 * The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners. In only a few isolated instances were peasants able to hang on to their lands. This led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy.

There are two ambiguous pronouns in the last sentence. One is "this" at the beginning of the sentence. The other is "it" later in the sentence. Let's discuss "it" first. It would be better if you could substitute a phrase instead of "it". What was a "long step backwards"? I couldn't tell if "it" was the government's attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project or Árbenz's agrarian reform project. But keep reading. If we resolve the other instance of ambiguity, the ambiguity of "it" might be taken care of.

Now let's look at "this" at the beginning of the sentence. I'm pretty sure that when you say "This", you meant the government's attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project by seizing land from agrarian laborers and giving them to large landowners (and not the few peasants hanging onto their land). If I am correct, then the intervening sentence "In only a few instances..." puts distance between the pronoun ("this") and its antecedent, which is the first sentence, making "this" a little ambiguous. I see two ways to fix this. One is to minimize the intrusion of the short intervening sentence, either

(a) by making it a prepositional phrase tacked onto the end of the previous sentence:


 * The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners, with peasants able to hang onto their lands in only a few isolated instances.

or

(b) by putting the sentence into parentheses:


 * The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners. (In only a few isolated instances were peasants able to hang on to their lands.)' This led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy.

The other way is to expand the pronoun "this" and make it a phrase that makes it clear what "led the US embassy to comment".

You could also do both. I prefer (a) and expanding "this" at the beginning of the third sentence. Maybe "This move by the government", "This attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project", or "This seizure and transfer of land".

What do you think of this wording? –


 * The government also attempted to reverse the agrarian reform project initiated by Árbenz, and large areas of land were seized from the agrarian laborers who had received them under Árbenz and given to large landowners, with peasants able to hang onto their lands in only a few isolated instances. This attempt to reverse the agrarian reform project led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy.

If you word it like this, I think the problem of the ambiguity of "it" is taken care of.

(I'm a little puzzled, though, why the US embassy would say this, since it had supported Castillo Armas all along. Were they surprised Castillo Armas would undo Árbenz's project? I don't see how they could be.) – Corinne (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've modified the wording []: is this satisfactory? The U.S. supported Castillo Armas, yes, but there were many players within the U.S. government: I suspect that this was the work of an embassy official less willing to turn a blind eye towards Castillo Armas' activities than the CIA. Vanamonde (talk)

2a) In the Carlos Castillo Armas section, this sentence seems somehow either out of place or isolated, not connected to anything else:


 * Castillo Armas' death led to a marked increase in attacks in the Guatemalan media against the exiled Jacobo Árbenz.

I would move this sentence, or remove it, or add a few words to explain why this is significant and/or who historians think was behind the media attacks. That would make the sentence seem less out of place.

2b) Also, you've got two sentences in a row with "Castillo Armas' death", this one and the next one. It would be good to figure out a way to avoid this kind of repetition.


 * The source is actually not very clear about this, stating it as fact without explaining why. It does mention that it was the last occasion on which Arbenz spoke to the media, but I don't know how relevant that fact is, so I've removed it. Vanamonde (talk)

3) Also, two sentences later, you have:


 * However, supporters of Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes rioted...

It's not clear at all why they would riot. Ydígoras Fuentes has not been mentioned in a while, and now suddenly it appears again. I think you should give a little more information here as to why Ydígoras Fuentes' supporters would suddenly break out into a riot. Was Ydígoras Fuentes standing in the wings, waiting for his moment? Was there a growing underground movement all during Castillo Armas' presidency? What was his base?

Just a thought.


 * Ah yes I did not make that clear: Ydigoras was also a candidate, but lost the election. Vanamonde (talk)

4) At the very end of the Carlos Castillo Armas section, there is a sentence with an error in it, but I cannot figure out what it should be. Here is the sentence:


 * On 25 June 1956 government forces opened fire on student protesters, killing size people and wounding a large number.

You'll have to fix this one.


 * It's supposed to be six. I don't know how it became "size." Vanamonde (talk)

5) In the last paragraph in Carlos Castillo Armas is the following sentence:


 * Castillo Armas also saw Monzón as having been late to enter the fight against Árbenz.

It's not clear why this sentence is here, or what the relationship of this to the negotiations was. (I know I re-worded this sentence slightly – you can compare your original sentence to this in the revision history – and I hope I didn't introduce a factual error with my re-wording.) It's obviously something negative Castillo Armas felt about Monzón, but was Castillo Armas using this to his own advantage in the negotiations? Was he raising doubt about Monzón's loyalty or suitability? Can you add just a little bit to give some context for this sentence and relate it better to the surrounding sentences? Well, that's all for now. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could help me make this clearer. Castillo Armas essentially saw Monzon as a bit of an upstart: that is what is meant by "having been late to enter the fight," except the sources use the latter phrase, and don't say "upstart." It's there because it has been described by scholars as a barrier to the negotiations. What would you suggest? Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind that I re-worded the sentence about the reversal of Arbenz's agrarian reform project. I didn't think we should use both "effort" and "attempted" since "effort" and "attempt" (noun) are near synonyms. I also wonder whether we need the phrase "from the previous policy". That seems to duplicate the first part of the sentence. However, with or without that phrase, it may not be completely clear what the embassy spokesperson meant by saying it was "a long step back". In light of what you said, above (that this was expressed by someone who may not have agreed with the CIA), I wonder if you would consider adding a brief explanatory phrase, something like:


 * This move by Castillo Armas to reverse Árbenz's agrarian reform project led the US embassy to comment that it was a "long step backwards" from the previous policy, suggesting that it was seen as a step in the wrong direction.


 * Or would that be speculation, or "original research"?


 * Regarding the issue of Monzón and the negotiations, do you think Castillo Armas said that because he questioned Monzón's loyalty, or because he didn't want to share power with someone he saw as an inferior, or because he was saying anything to undermine Monzón in the eyes of the CIA and thus get him out of the way? (I know both speculation and original research are not permitted, but what is your understanding of the sources you've read?) – Corinne (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Integrated Technology Group page created
Dear Vanamonde93,

as you may know i cannot create Integrated Technology Group for several reasons

can you help me as an administrator to create this page for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heba Tabalat (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In a word: no. The issue with the page is that it was quite promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promotion. You need to demonstrate that you can edit in a non-promotional manner before anybody will consider removing the protection on that page. Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting of Page Overturned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_and_West_Midlands_(North_Sector)_Army_Cadet_Force

I am the author of this page and according to Wiki, I have the right as the author to have it removed. I need this page deleted ASAP. What can be done?
 * It's been deleted. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

pending changes
Hi Vanamonde93, you added pending changes to Napoleon Hill in response to a claim of vandalism. I happened onto this page today and after examining the edits the IPs are not vandalizing the page. Instead, a named account has been making changes to the article using an unreliable blog post that is nothing more than an attack page on Gizmodo. The IP's are attempting to restore the stable, well sourced version of this article, while OmgItstheSmartGuy is edit warring with them to keep his changes intact. Please examine the edits by the IP's. You'll see what I'm talking about. Please then remove the pending changes on this article and allow the IP's to edit. IP attempting to restore stable, sourced material. here. I myself tonight attempted to clean up the lead but OmgitsTheSmartGuy immediately reverted my changes. The difference between the stable version and this editor's version seems to border on vandalism in plain sight. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stable version of Napoleon Hill:.


 * Version after OmgitsTheSmartGuy:.

The IP's were trying to protect the page, while OmgitsTheSmartGuy appears to have used the claim of vandalism to block legitimate editors from undoing whatever it is he's doing over there. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be as clear cut as I remembered it, but I don't think your description is entirely accurate, either. The "stable" version you linked to has numerous problems as well, including an over-reliance on books by the subject, which is usually indicative of an issue with promotional editing. Furthermore, the IPs were certainly being disruptive, and their edit-summaries do not augur well for a productive discussion. Finally, PC protection is not preventing them from editing; it merely prevents their edits from going live. With respect to "fixing" the article, PC protection has very little impact: reverting a pending edit is still a revert, for instance, and the protection is not allowing OMG to game 3RR or anything. Given that the major players here have probably watchlisted the article, there really is no difference with respect to the final outcome. On the balance, I'm going to let the protection remain, and would ask that you hash it out on the talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on those points as I later went back over things, but it is noteworthy that instead of using the talk page to resolve issues, OMG went to PP claiming vandalism in what appears to be an attempt to prevent the IPs from editing. I can see that you obviously made the changes in good faith. If pending changes does not stop the IPs, then that's the best solution all around on that. But OMG does not appear to be editing with the best interests of the article in mind. I will take the issue to the talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pages by User:Shikaa
Can you also look at other pages created by User:Shikaa that I have tagged? i.e. Amit Kapoor, Akhil Kapur Coderzombie (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not responding sooner: but I deleted one of the pages, and the CSD has been (correctly) declined for the other. If you have doubts about notability, I suggest you take it to AfD. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

my talk
May be it is a good idea to semiprotect a couple of days. Will you?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * yeah, he really needs to find something else to do. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello, I was wondering what I could do to gain the rollback user level. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a brief look at your contributions when I checked your request, and they seemed to be okay; you need to just keep chugging along, and eventually it will make sense to give you the rollback flag. However one of the things a lot of Wikipedians are allergic to is any signs of "hat-collecting", ie looking for access to user-rights for the sake of having them. Please keep this in mind. The rollback flag is not (or should not be, at any rate) a marker of status or worth to the project; and user levels here are NOT analogous to user levels in an MMORPG, for instance. I'm not suggesting that you perceive them this way: I'm just telling you to avoid the perception, period. If you keep making constructive contributions, it will quickly become obvious that it makes sense to grant you particular user rights: and that is what you should do. Oh, and the talkback template is meant for when you have left me a message elsewhere, and wish to notify me: if you're posting here, you don't need it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. I understand what you mean and I will keep on removing vandalism from Wikipedia.

One more thing what does it mean by edits to mainspace because on my stats it says I have over 255 edits to Wikipedia.
 * Good, that's the right approach to take. As an aside, you don't need to use the "ping" template on my talk page either: again, that's for bringing me to a page that I will not necessarily see otherwise. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~ at the end. Finally, "mainspace" refers to actual articles, and "mainspace edits" are edit you make to actual articles. Every other page, that is pages with titles like "Talk: XXXX", "User Talk:YYYY", "Wikipedia:ZZZZ", and so forth, are not mainspace. You have 255 edits in total; and 76 to mainspace (also called "article space" sometimes). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One more thing, is there a way to track your mainspace edits? Mdriscoll03 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed there is. This link, also found at the bottom of your "contributions" page (Edit count) gives you all your edits broken down by namespace. Vanamonde (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

My article was deleted?
Hi, The page Skype Mingo was deleted because it was apparently advertising? I don't believe it was, and I did not advocate the app as good or bad, just stated that it existed, and said some of the features. Is there a way it can be restored? Zjjppiscool (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if this was not your intent, the article appeared promotional because a link to the app store was the only reference cited. Any article needs to be based on reliable sources, and also need to demonstrate notability. If you wish to try again I would suggest creating a draft and using the WP:AFC process to create it: however, most apps are unlikely to be notable, I suspect. If you are interested, I can move the deleted article into your userspace, but IIRC it was only a sentence long. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Law firm page deleted
You recently deleted our firm's Wikipedia page (Sutherland Asbill & Brennan / Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP) for SPAM (G11). We would like to update it to comply with Wikipedia's standards. Can you please restore the page? And apologies, I think I accidentally posted this twice. Mktgtechnews (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not, sorry. I deleted the article because it was clearly promotional in nature. Under normal circumstances, I would have provided you with a copy of the deleted version to work on. However, you have more or less admitted that you work for this firm in some capacity. You therefore have a conflict of interest on this page, and should not be editing it at all. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Anti-apartheid music
Fantastic article. Not sure I'm nearly knowledgeable enough to review it. However, did you come across the protest song Azikatali noma siyaboshwa? Was sung at Soweto, and makes a fine 4-part harmony. YouTube versions. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, . Still a work in progress in some ways, but it's nice to be appreciated! This song is actually quite new to me, thanks for passing it along: though Mini, of course, I know of. The harmonies are quite something. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

About recreating article accordingly that you have deleted previously
Subject: Require your permission regarding recreating my article

I want to humbly inform you that I am new to Wikipedia so I am unaware of many regulations that I am supposed to follow during writing an article. I attempted to create a article named "Ganchill Music" but my article has been deleted by you due to Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I am planning to recreate the article by following the regulations this time. If you give me a green signal, I would like to start working on this article again. Maruf GGMU (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is read WP:N, WP:NPOV, and especially WP:RS; and once you have done that, write your draft using reliable sources to support your additions; and then I would strongly suggest using the WP:AFC process to create your article. Vanamonde (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahmados5 vandalism
I noticed you reverted an edit by Ahmados5 and gave a warning. Made no differece, (s)he has made a number of similar edits on other pages since, which I have reverted. There seems to be a distinct pattern here. I believe you are an admin; I'm not too au fait with these processes, but might a ban be in order? Emeraude (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't vandalism strictly speaking, but the addition of spam links, which is in many ways just as bad. They had not been given very many warnings, though. I've left them a final warning: if they add spam again, I will block them indefinitely. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Emeraude (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Narendra Modi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Narendra Modi 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "You're insane" was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this nom in the Wikiproject alerts. Good to see that you've continued to work in this area after the slightly frustrating process of getting BJP to GA. Seeing the reviewer above reassured me that this would definitely be a good review; following it closely. I'll obviously sooner or later watch the article and read through it entirely. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha perhaps I am. I'd been working a lot in other areas, maybe things got too quiet for me...MBO is an ideal person to review this, so it should be a helpful process. I'd welcome more eyes on the review: I'm certain you can make improvements that I cannot. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ferdowsi
Hello, Vanamonde93 - If you have time, would you mind taking a look at the recent back-and-forth  at Ferdowsi? I believe Lysozym is a scholar. – Corinne (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing some edit-warring, but with only one revert in the last 12 hours or so, I don't think I'm justified in protecting the page just yet: and I'm afraid I don't know enough to dive into the content dispute. This might be a "wait and watch" situation; though if the edit-warring gets worse, RFPP might be the best place, as I might be at work or asleep. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Willie and Joe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Willie and Joe. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia only lists partial text of long deletion explanation
Hello, I saw that you deleted the Gritter (software) page which I created, but I do not see how to see the full deletion reason which you gave. When I go to the page I am shown "(Expired PROD, concern was: Nothing establishing actual notability and substance in our established policies at all since searches only found simple announcements and listings, none of which are actual significance for us and thus there's si...)". It is unclear to me where I should navigate to find the rest of this text, can you help?

(Separately, and FYI, I have nothing to do with the team creating Gritter, I created the page because there are pages for several similar JS libraries on Wikipedia and it would have been very helpful to me if that page had existed, before I created it! i.e. I would have had to do much less research myself to arrive at the info I put on the page. I missed the PROD. Very often when I create a page on Wikipedia, it is put as a candidate for deletion by a zealous editor, until this one I have always had to do the job of arguing my case for the existence of the page, as well as the job of creating it, and until this one, after discussion, I have 'won'. I wonder why I do have to waste quite so much time fighting to contribute to this free encyclopedia, especially with such a long history of genuine contributions. )

Bmju (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The full reason is as follows: "Nothing establishing actual notability and substance in our established policies at all since searches only found simple announcements and listings, none of which are actual significance for us and thus there's simply no actual substance here." The PROD process is only for non-controversial deletions; thus, if you want the article undeleted, I have to comply, although because it's notability is really rather doubtful, it is likely to be sent to AfD or such. Vanamonde (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks, I would prefer it undeleted and to have the opportunity to discuss the issue e.g. via AfD if needed.

Modi GAN
Sorry, I have been away for a couple of days. I see that you have sorted out the citations issue mentioned at the Modi GAN, having accepted an offer of help that I didn't fulfil due to my absence. That is one tough article! Thousands of electrons have died at my hands alone in trying to get it into some sort of fairly decent shape. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, real life happens to all of us. It really is quite tricky. If you're still able to look in, one thing I could use help with is the "Image" section; now that I review it it needs serious work: it's just a hotchpotch of random stuff at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I had consistently argued that section should not exist. It was just fancruft. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The content in it at the moment, probably just cruft, but I'm wondering whether it might be a good place to cover perceptions of him, which have received some amount of coverage...Vanamonde (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
You may want to mention something about E. Howard Hunt's role in the coup. By Hunt's own account, at least, he was the main "architect" of the operation. Just a suggestion. Nice work on the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, TheTimesAreAChanging. I'll look into the Hunt issue: I've seen his name crop up, but off the top of my head, I haven't seen him given much space in the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts to National Observance day.
Hey, I noticed that you reverted and redirected the article, with awards and honours section!.Junosoon (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed I did. If you want an article in mainspace, then it needs to meet the standards for mainspace. You cannot create an article now just so that you can work on it at some point in the future: that is what the userspace and the draftspace are for. Furthermore, you are skirting the edges of your topic ban by recreating an article from a redirect. Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh!, how would you take a presence of stub article in main space, I had been advised to expand the stubs and small articles, that was I was doing!!, if all stub articles suffer the same fate, of being redirect, or merge, do you expect any expansion of articles on Wikipedia mainspace?. Junosoon (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. If you had actually expanded it, I would not have objected: nor would I object if you expanded it now, provided the content you add is up to the mark. The point is that you didn't expand it. You simply reverted Dharma's redirect with the claim that you were going to expand it, and then did nothing about it; which just looks like edit-warring, and not content work. Find new content. Write it up in your userspace. Make sure it meets all our core policies. Then add it. If you follow these steps, you're not likely to get reverted. Oh, and this is my talk page, you don't need to ping me. Vanamonde (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly wikipedia works in collobration, secondly there is no WP:Deadline, so if anyone is eligible to expand it whenever they want, thirdly this article isn't new as you are referring to ban .Junosoon (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is getting silly. Drop the stick and move on. Vanamonde (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * --- If you believe that that you could sufficiently improve the article, you are free to do so, preferably incorporating the changes in a short span of time to the article but unless and until you do so, a redirect is the best option.Also,I find it hard to gauge how the cited policies buckles up your claims.When deciding on a redirect/merge/AFD discussion we, editors reserve our judgements on the present state and ambit of the article, rather than dwelling on the hallowed portals of future.Sorry, but not everybody have got a crystal ball yet! Winged Blades Godric 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of The Indian Handwritten Letter Co.
Hello Vanamonde93. May I know which portion of the content sounds promotional that it has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.176.153.117 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Essentially all of it: it was written in a style appropriate to the company's own website, not to an encyclopedia. Vanamonde (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page: Debashis Sarkar
Thanks for your message I disagree with your assessment ... The page was not for promotion. I have liked you to suggest modification instead of just deleting it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Det1234 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:RS. Your article did not comply with any of those policies, and so it was deleted. Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Eric Cartman
Hi,

The disruptive editing has returned after your previous semi-protection on this article. Just letting you know so you can keep an eye on it. Regards. 172.56.39.178 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Semi protected again, for a month this time. Vanamonde (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Why thank you, ! It's much appreciated. It was quite a bit of work. Vanamonde (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

DevSecOps Deletion
Please Please explain how this reads like a companies website? What/who am I promoting? How is this not neutral? I am just dumbfounded. DevSecOps is a real thing that industry around the world is doing in response to DevOps (which has a Wikipedia page???).

Regarding notability, I have 5 unique independent citations/references. Certainly you can research this topic to understand its credibility.

Are you stating the topic alone is not worthy or how the content is written to support the content? Either way, the "promoting" stamp is very generalistic and does not identify what it is that is not compliant. Yes, you did reference the policies, but see my initial questions.

Thank you for your input. Bjm243wiki (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjm243wiki (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am personally doubtful as to whether this topic is notable at all, but my deletion was not a comment on notability; it simply had to do with the promotional nature, intentionally or otherwise, of the article. Briefly, this is the issue. The article describes a concept (DevSecOps) and states that it is important, using non-reliable sources that seem to be interested in promoting the use of said concept. The article then links to a project which seems to be about producing the tools to use this framework (or some such: honestly I don't understand the details of the jargon), again using a source intended to promote OWASP. All of which is, in a word, promotional. For this to be neutral, all of the analysis would have to be from independent, reliable sources. Of the six references in the version I deleted, two were possibly independent, and none, so far as I could tell, would meet our criteria for generic reliable sources. do you have anything to add, since you deleted this and restored it before I got to it? Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Music in the movement against apartheid
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news
 * A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
 * AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
 * Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
 * The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news
 * A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
 * Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
 * A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)