User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 14

I need your Help
Hi. Can you please participate in this discussion (regarding direct flights of Air India) and express your views ? I think all the claims I have made are pretty accurate and verifiable. I want to have a consensus, though the user who started this discussion must seek consensus. I shall be very much thankful to you for your involvement and help. Vibhss (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have experience with airport related articles. If there is any disruption going on, I could potentially step in in an admin capacity, but I don't think that's the case just yet. Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider asking at WT:AIRLINES. I guess the issue is whether flight numbers determine the existence of a flight or whether plane changes nullify the 'directness' of the flight. This is likely a very common thing in the airline world and there might already be consensus on how to treat them. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But I have not started this discussion. I have just responded to the initiator of this discussion correcting his wrong interpretations. Well, the concerned direct flight operates with same flight number (on all days) and same aircraft (on most days with a particular pattern as explained in the discussion). Vibhss (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark's suggestion is an excellent one, and I suggest you follow it. If I knew anything about airport articles your argument might be convincing, but I don't. You are having a disagreement with a user acting in good faith, even if they may be wrong; so you need to bring more people into the discussion, and RP showed you the best place to do it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

why the page bharat ke veer deleted
i want to know what is the reason why the bharat ke veer page deleted this page directly show the interest of people and i want to aware the people that there is a web portal by which you can help our martyrs so why do you delete it if you delete it then write this page otherwise don't delete it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikone (talk • contribs) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kaushikone: The page was deleted because it was written in a promotional manner. Please read WP:NOTPROMO, WP:V, and WP:RS. The topic is also likely not notable. Vanamonde (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brandishing a firearm
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brandishing a firearm. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:/r/The Donald
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:/r/The Donald. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Congratulations. Vanamonde (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Why thank you, ! I enjoy her writing, so it almost isn't work :) Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how I feel about much of my Wikignomishness. :-) And "Pandora" has been one of my lodestars through most of my reading, which began around 1952. --Thnidu (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

SWEDHR founder professor
Good afternoon,

I address here issues of seemingly politically biased agenda, and of serious defamation, regarding recent edits in the article Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, including its Talk page, and the article on that organization's founder. The reason why I'm writing to you in the first place, is because I saw that you have intervened and clarified issues around the deletion-proposal done against the article on Swedhr.

The same users that proposed the failed deletion of that article have now erased most of the content and references of a version which during two years had remained stable, truthful and objective, despite subsequent edits after its creation (by Hrdap) and principally after a helpful major revision done by User:W.carter in April 2015.

One of these users, who also is now asking for the deletion of the article about the founder of SWEDHR, Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli, even writes in the deletion page Articles for deletion/Marcello Ferrada de Noli that SWEDHR "only output is statements supporting the views of the Russian government"!

The facts: these actions have taken place after SWEDHR's important human rights denounces with geopolitical value. These investigations have recently been reported as evidence in the United Nations Security Council, and more recently at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The SWEDHR investigations have put in question the reliability of sources alleging the nature and/or origin of alleged gas attacks in Syria. SWEDHR, on the other hand, has not denied that gas attacks would have taken place in Syria (see document linked below). --Hrdap (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to ask you on the following,

a) For help in the restoring of a tenable version of the SWEDHR, reverting it to the version published just prior the biased editings that started with the request of deleting the article altogether.

b) For possible sustainable protection of the article in prevention of future vandalism,

c) To kindly examine the situation regarding the new deleting attempt, meaning the article about the SWEDHR founder professor.

Sincerely,

User Hrdap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdap (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest I am not entirely certain why you are coming to me, as I have no expertise in the subject per se. What I did was to close the previous AfD which is one of several tasks I perform as an administrator. I might look in on this deletion discussion as well, but I will not intervene directly in the content dispute, as it is too much of a mess, and I do not have the time or the patience. Also, please read WP:TLDR; the longer a post gets, the harder it is to read all of it. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry to have disturbed you. There is no other reason than the one I wrote. It was thou excessive background info, I can see that now. And thanks for the link on appropriate text-length. / User Hrdap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdap (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Otilia Brumă
Hi. A couple of months ago, you deleted an article on this person per G4. (Apparently, that target is also salted.) I'm guessing this too is eligible, even if it's been recreated under a different title. - Biruitorul Talk 00:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with this particular performer but does the fact that one of her YouTube videos - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j0dlcfekqw - has almost 123 million views - 122,934,709 at the moment - convey some measure of notability? Plus various of her other YouTube videos have 5.8 million views, 1.8 million.... She also appears to have charted in Turkey at #1 and charted at #1 in Greece with "Bilionera" http://www.apropotv.ro/muzica/otilia-si-bilionera-sunt-de-10-saptamani-numarul-1-la-radourile-din-grecia-13897243-articol. Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Honestly this is a bit of a mess; Otilia_(singer) and Otilia Bruma have both been deleted many times, mostly under A7, and one of those has been salted. BUT, these deletions occurred a while ago, and while youtube views do not contribute towards notability, they do suggest that some other evidence of notability will be available. So I'd rather not speedy delete this, and I'd suggest you send it to AfD, if you cannot find anything about her. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. 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 at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

re The Church Lady
Hi, thanks for protecting that page. That whole thing was weird. Apparently there's a bad editor using a range of those long IP addresess -- 2605:8d80:440:91fd:e8cc:e6f4:7b4c:b51c and so forth -- attacking the page. It's in the page history. Don't know if you want to block that range or keep an eye it or what, just a heads-up. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up. If a range block is needed, I'm afraid I'm not your person: perhaps might be able to help. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bishzilla only pick low-hanging IPv6 fruit, sorry! She need situation where first four groups of figures are same; then she chop off rest of IP, add some colons and slashes and "64", and block. (Satisfying! Yes!! Try it, little Vanamonde!) When only three groups are same, as in Church Lady history, Zilla hands too big, regret. Better ask some even more formidable power user. Young WritKeeper maybe? My little Ponyo? bishzilla   ROA R R! ! 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Who are you calling little? I am an immensely old being of pure intellect. Thanks, maybe I'll try it sometime :) Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ohh, seems young WritKeeper is blocked, naughty vandal! Try little Writ Keeper instead. bishzilla   ROA R R! ! 18:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

45.59.9.250
Hi,

When blocking this IP address, did you notice that they had just come off of a 3 month block? You made it 48 hours, instead of escalating the block after that 3 months (which was fairly recent ago). Regards. 194.186.229.150 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah your right...I saw one previous block, and so I gave it 48 hours, which is the run-of-the-mill second block: it didn't cross my mind that the first block for an IP address would be longer than 31 hours; but in this case this seems to have been justified, so I've upped it to 6 months. Vanamonde (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page
Hi Vanamonde93,

I was instructed to edit/update Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her personal visitant and most of the information was outdated including the image used (which she did not like). I really need to go in and make those edits that you deleted, therefore please do not delete again or revert any of the edits done. You can of course go in and include information (if factual) but do not delete.

Based on the information I shared with you above, I will be going back into her Wikipedia page and once again add all the information that was deleted.

If you have any further questions let me know.

Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the reply below. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page
Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also innacurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikepedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of. Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Please keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page, and so you need to exercise great care with your editing, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Your biography is covered by the policy on biographies of living people. Therefore, any information in it is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, which is how we verify the truth of any facts on Wikipedia. If there are facts which are incorrect and/or not supported by reliable sources in the article about you, the best way for you to go about addressing this is to post to the talk page of the article with your concerns. If this does not work, or if your concerns are very serious, then the best thing to do would be to contact WP:OTRS, which is meant to help with situations like this. Finally, please remember that according to our policy on a neutral point of view, your article needs to be written based on how you are described in reliable sources, not how you choose to describe yourself. At the moment, this article fails these policies quite badly: we shall have to see what to do about that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I told you: please post to the talk page of the article, or contact WP:OTRS. There are instructions for the latter at this link: Contact us - Subjects. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sooooo
User:Justcallmesam is at it again, this time using to indulge in his "is it a valid taxon" meshugaas. I gave him a level 4 warning, but he's been warned like, what, 20, 30 times about this, in addition to being blocked, and none of those appear to have penetrated his skull about this behavior. You think he's reached the end of his WP:ROPE?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do here. I have blocked the original account for disruptive editing, but really that's not going to help very much because he's already using IP addresses, that are clearly not very stable. I'd suggest you find an admin willing to check whether a range block is possible (Bishonen, or Ponyo, perhaps); otherwise, I'm very much afraid we might have a LTA situation on our hands. Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, and thank you for your assistance.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your warning to me about sourcing
All due respect, I'm baffled about the warning you gave me on my Talk page about sourcing. If you look at the edits I made to USC Trojans football, you will see that all the edits I made are properly sourced. I have cited books and newspaper articles for my edits. Moreover, those books and newspapers are legitimate sources. I have also attempted to introduce a discussion about a topic under consideration on the Talk page, but to no avail. I initiated the discussion but User:UW Dawgs has not answered. Moreover, that user (a partisan of the U of Washington Huskies, one of USC's rivals, BTW), has gone through and marked up the article with numerous "unreferenced section" tags. Plainly this is motivated by wanting to edit-war with me, not with wanting to improve the article in question. I don't think he is editing in good faith at this particular article. Maybe you can help me, or at least tell me why my edits are not properly sourced, if indeed they are not properly sourced. For example, is there anything wrong with this edit? Chisme (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what part was I not clear about? It seems to me you understood what I was saying, given that the edit that you just linked to was fine. Stuff like this, on the other hand, is not so good. Yes, perhaps those links support that information, but it should typically still be sourced here for the sake of verifiability. You will note that I didn't warn you about incorrect content; merely that sometimes you were neglecting to duplicate sources, or add sources, as necessary. This is especially true because the content was in dispute. It is true that the editor you are in conflict with has also displayed sub-par behavior, but I have already asked them not to use standard templated warnings with relatively experienced users such as yourself: I have now also left them a note about section-based templates. If it's any consolation, you were reported to AIV, and given that there were some edits of yours that had added unsourced information, you could easily have ended up with a block. To cut a long story short, maybe you just need to be more careful in showing that your content is, in fact, verifiable? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this, Vanamonde. I think my edits were made in good faith. Even the edit you cite, for example, was not made offhand. It may look like I was inserting unsourced material, but really I was re-inserting content from the "Actors & entertainment industry" section that User:UW Dawgs removed. Moreover, when I took up UW Dawgs's challenge to properly source this section, which required considerable research on my part, UW Dawg summarily dismissed my research with an "Importance Section" tag. He/she did this without addressing the issue on the Talk page, as I invited him/her to do. Who's acting in good faith here? You may note that UW Dawgs inserted ten "Unreferenced Section" tags into the article in the space of seven minutes. Can anyone in good faith realistically investigate ten topics in only seven minutes to determine whether they are referenced correctly? Chisme (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you are acting in good faith, though perhaps you could avoid the mildly sarcastic edit summaries? Your pique is understandable. I have asked UW Dawg to be more careful with tags, so let's see how it goes from here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pique" -- I like your choice of words. What do I do now? Do I need to address every one of his "Importance Section" references, no matter how arbitrarily they were applied? There are now 13 in the article. I think I'm entitled to remove Dawg's "contains information of unclear or questionable importance" on the "Connection to Hollywood arts and entertainment industry" section since I went to so much trouble to research it and he didn't address his concerns on the Talk page. Chisme (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gifts (novel)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gifts (novel) 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gifts (novel)
The article Gifts (novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gifts (novel) 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Charged with vandalism by UW Dawgs again
I hate to bother you, but UW Dawgs has charged me a second time with vandalism. I really don't think I deserve this. I've worked hart to improve the USC Trojans football article. I've worked in good faith. Chisme (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the report was properly declined, so there's nothing to be done at the moment. The tagging might be a little pointy, but if a section is not, in fact, referenced, then you should leave the tag be until you fix it: and if the section is properly referenced, it would be more helpful to go to WP:3O or WP:DRN to sort it out, rather than edit warring over the tag. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Aipysurus fuscus
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection of 2017 Berkeley protests
I don't see any request at Requests for page protection‎. What prompted you to apply protection? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably watchlisted. If Vanamonde93 hadn't protected it, I would have. --Neil N  talk to me 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have watchlisted Drmies talk page, which is where I saw the dispute, but honestly that does not matter very much. I'm uninvolved on that page, and can therefore apply protection to it when a dispute is in progress. More details are in my reply here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please consider revdeleting this edit? I already asked another admin, but I don't think she saw my message. Funcrunch (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another revdelete needed if you don't mind - Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And this one too... Funcrunch (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for letting me know. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and sorry, one more BLP violation was added since I posted here that should probably also be revdeleted. Funcrunch (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd been mulling over that one, but on the balance probably better to remove it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

YGM

 * I've replied. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, your advice is much appreciated. You type amazingly quickly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Starship Troopers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Harrison. 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) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

TFAR
I saw that you entered an article for pending TFA for June 18, - any reason why you don't go directly to WP:TFAR which accepts noms until July 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason, just ignorance...I was certain, in my mind, that they only took nominations for the next month. I'll get on this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ignorance is a reason ;) - and June is next month, no? It's precisely: one month from the last scheduled day (31 May) + 1, so 1 June, for a month, to 1 July. You don't need to learn the formula because the dates are on top, also of WP:TFARP. Thanks for planning to nominate yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, so it's a month from the last scheduled, not a month from today? Got it. I'll do this in a few hours. Vanamonde (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Committee for Peasant Unity
Mifter (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible discussion of interest
Based on your statements in the recent RfA, I don't believe it is canvassing to alert you to this. I have started a discussion related to the DId you know template, specifically, moving it from "Full protection" to "Template protection". Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've commented there, . TL:DR I think the idea is good, but we're going to have to change the protection system for all the main page components. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate everyone's input.  There are protection issues I was obviously unaware of but I thought the conversation needed to be started. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Erol Önderoğlu
Mifter (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Need your help
I am thinking on embarking on a project to expand the article Calcutta Club .Please could you tell me what is lacking in the article and how should I go about it(as I am not very experienced in all this as I mostly do small fixes)FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about that organization, so I'm not certain why you are asking me; but in any case, my suggestion would be to find reliable sources which cover it in depth, and then report what they say. What's missing tends to get fixed along the way. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not been here on this project for long and thus know very few people well enough.Since you edit India related articles and have expanded lots of articles .I thought well.....FORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, my work is chiefly on topics of history and politics, so I cannot give specific advice; but the above is a good rule of thumb for expanding any topic. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * S.O.S -Please help me out with GOI I wanted to promote the article to Good Article status but Earwig constantly shows up Copyvio violations from one site or another in the page.(this is the second time I have already fixed a copyvio violation from a youtube channel)FORCE RADICAL (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time to go into this in detail, but you should probably check the dates on which this content was uploaded to Wikipedia vs when it was posted to quora. It is quite likely that the "copyright violations" are actually other people copying text from Wikipedia. However, if this is not the case, you will have to rewrite that content. Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion saved me of a ton of work.ThanksFORCE RADICAL (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

AFD
I think the close of the AFD of yours, came minutes after I had striked my vote for merge and redirect and proposed deletion instead. Capitals00 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, your edit seems to have been made after I had read the page but before I saved my edit. Nonetheless, I am not going to revert the closure. The rationale may no longer be strictly correct, but it is correct in substance. You are proposing to delete the article, but acknowledging that there might be content worth saving; thus in essence you still want a merger, it's just that you don't seem to want the article title to exist while a merger is being contemplated. Your rationale to merge is also far from clear; please see my entire closing comment. The whole thing was a bit of a mess. I'd strongly suggest you take this to the article talk page, and propose a merger there. Vanamonde (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay better to try this out instead. Capitals00 (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you unprotect this page United States presidential election, 2020
i believe the issue of disruptive editing has passed Crewcamel (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Amr Awadallah's Proposed deletion
Why was the page deleted? I don't see the point in deleting it! Plus, I have put in some hard work to come in good shape. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 23:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Strike Vilakazi
Mifter (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Meadowlands (song)
Mifter (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gifts (novel)
Hello! Your submission of Gifts (novel) 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Permission to create Shahaf Shabtai and to clear the misunderstanding
Hi, it is regarding the page which was delted due to misundrstanding. English is my secand language. That is why I used word resume instead of Biography. I was working on what you said I am now in position to create a neutral article for Shahaf Shabtai. I appologize for the language error, I meant to say biography not a resume ofcourse. Please allow me to re publish the page. I have learned everything about nuetrality and style. this is the link to our previous discussion --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanamonde93/Archive_13#The_Shahaf_Shabtai- thank you Nmalka (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not actually prevented you from creating this page; I only deleted the previous version. I would suggest the following, Create it in your userspace (meaning, create it at the title "User:Nmalka/Shahaf Shabtai") and when you are done, use the WP:AFC process to have it created. Also, I'm not certain if you have a conflict of interest or not, but you should read that guideline in any case, and if you do have a conflict of interest, you should probably not be writing this article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have no conflict of interest of any kind, so I think I should work on it and learn Wikipedia to contribute more about different topics of my interest. I read everything you suggest and I am in a better position to create this article. I was thinking of publishing it directly after editing as per wikipedia guidelines but I'll follow your suggesstions and ask from you again if I didn't understood anything. Thanks again Nmalka (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I have prepared an article as per Wikipedia guidelines and as you suggested. Should I create it directly or in my sandbox for you to review? Please check my sandbox and guide me thanks Nmalka (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nmalka: I am rather busy at the moment, as the banner on this page says. Please use the WP:AFC process, as I suggested above. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Starship Troopers
The reception section looks strong on a first read-through. Do you have any specific questions? I didn't read it as carefully as I would for a FAC review, but nothing jumped out at me. The organization seems sensible, and the prose is clean.

I can also dig around and see if I have any sources you haven't used, if you like. Some would be reviews from within the field; people like Damon Knight and James Blish, for example. I also have Magill's Survey of SF Literature and there's sure to be an essay in there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Hopefully I will bring it to FAC some day, and then you can review it in greater depth. My only specific question is whether the section is too long, and if so, what needs to go. So with that in mind I'd rather not add more reviews unless they were saying something substantially different. Maybe the survey entry will be useful, though. Regards, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 01:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

DYK for Gifts (novel)
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Civility - Reply
Hi there VM, from Portugal,

within the "wiki-legal" scope you are absolutely right, I am not performing according the site's standards. It seems to be stronger than me, I have been contributing regularly since late 2006 (sometimes i get fed up - whether because i feel it's time-consuming or because I reach my limit with the vandals and/or the trolls - and ask that my account is vanished because I have the intention of leaving forever, only to find out I cannot), and in the last few years I "discovered" I have zero tolerance for vandalism (not being poetic about it here, ZERO), what is their point?

All that having been said, I apologize for any inconvenience created, happy editing and happy weekend! Regards back --85.242.133.151 (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Frustration with vandalism and other disruptive editing is entirely understandable. I feel it too. It's just that we must do our best to take a deep breath and let it go, rather than expel it via edit summaries, since this is collaborative environment (or should be). Thanks for being gracious about it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miriam Makeba
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miriam Makeba 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) 19:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification
I recently came accross your notification on my user page regarding unsourced content. My sincere apologies regarding that - did not intend to violate any policies! Thanks --Coconut1002 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Mueller
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Mueller. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Armando Codina
Hi Vanamonde93, I messaged you the below on May 4th and I'm checking back on the edits. Can you let me know if you can make this page visible again? Thanks! --2606:6000:604E:F700:9842:D84D:BB26:D347 (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made the updates you requested on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AngieSB/Armando_Codina (adding sources). Please let me know if you need any other changes in order to make the page visible again. Thank you for your help! --AngieSB (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have been busy, and I missed your initial message. This version of the page is a definite improvement over the older version. However, I think it's not quite ready to move into mainspace. First, there is still some unsourced information that could be read as promotional material: the "board member" section. Second, though the sources you have provided may be good enough to verify the information in question, I'm uncertain whether they are enough to demonstrate notability. Once you have addressed these issues, I suggest you use the WP:AFC process to recreate your article: you will get a more thorough review in that way. Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Spandrel (biology)
Hi Vanamonde, the discussion you joined (thanks!) on my talk page has moved to the article talk page. The IP has replied to your comments there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but to be honest I'd largely be repeating myself, and the IP seems in no mood to listen...Vanamonde (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So how can we take this forward? I've posted on Evolutionary biology and Biology WPs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about not misrepresenting me, not making false claims about me, and not violating core policies? That would seem like a good way forward to me.  109.180.164.3 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Calm, please, no personal attacks, and this isn't the place for the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop making false claims. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An RFC might be necessary at some point, just to make certain of consensus; but if the IP continues in their present vein, they are probably going to end up blocked for disruption. IP, you should not follow Chiswick Chap around when he is posting quite neutral invitations to comment, and post angry rebuttals everywhere. Keep the discussion in one place, please. Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. At the moment there's unanimity among WP:Biology editors except for the IP, but I'll not add the word back until things have completely settled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP has repeated the assertion of promotion (another editor having deleted the earlier material including abusive language in the same thread). I have not issued templates for either reason. What action if any would be best here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left them a stern warning. If they continued to attack people rather than stick to content, they will probably need to be blocked; if I'm not around, which is a possibility in the next few days, a post to ANI may be necessary, or you could ping another admin and point them to my warning. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Let's hope it does the trick. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can ignore this sort of thing; removing a warning is considered evidence of having read the warning. If necessary, just link to the diff, if they remove it again. Vanamonde (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the thing has restarted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you had left them a 3RR warning after 3 reverts: as it is, they have not reverted since your warning, and so blocking would be a questionable action. If they do revert once more, they will likely be blocked. Likewise, for what is ostensibly a content dispute, semi-protection would be questionable. One of those messy situations, I'm afraid, where there is no magic bullet...I'll monitor the page and their behavior, and intervene if appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)