User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 26

The Signpost: 24 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with Noticeboard
I have noticed that another person has tried to remove a discussion I started about a sockpuppet [] who is in a targeted way trying to revert what I put and then he will claim that I am "POV editing"or giving "Unconstructive edits". The sockpuppet's name is supposed to be Anonymous17771 and in fact for one article called Frontier Corps, he deleted information that I added with sourcing and did not give a proper reasoning before doing so. Can you please make sure that the Incident that I have recorded on the Noticeboard remains up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The account you want investigated is already blocked. No purpose is served by further investigation, and so the removal of the report was absolutely correct. Please don't put your request back on the noticeboard. Vanamonde (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Holiday wishes

 * Cheers,, and the same to you and yours. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

 * Many thanks,, and the same to you. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Vanamonde93: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, The SandDoctor  Talk 07:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


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

GA review request
I have recently nominated Vastupala, a 13th-century minister from Gujarat for GA review. I noticed that you have nominated some GAs related to Indian history. So I thought you would be better at reviewing Indian history related GA. Thus I humbly request you to review Vastupala for GA. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'll make an effort to review this, but it may be a few weeks before I get to it. At first glance, the article seems well researched and based on solid sources, which makes it a decent GA candidate. However, there are fairly regular grammatical issues. These could be picked up during a GA review, but since it's likely to be some time before it's reviewed, I wonder if you would consider requesting a GOCE copyedit. There are also some inconsistencies, which I suspect are a result of contradictory material in the sources: for instance, you mention a possible date of birth, but then state that a later date is the "earliest known date about him". The latter refers to an event thirty years after the former, but suggests it occurs during his childhood. This sort of thing may be resolved by using inline attribution more ("this source states that..."). Addressing these points before a review would speed it up considerably. Finally, considering how much the article mentions the brother of the primary subject, I wonder if it would be worth refashioning it into a single article about both siblings (which isn't that unusual a thing to do). Best, Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ........Piggybacking on the title of this section, how good is Rajendralal Mitra for a GA after writing a lead? The one about Narada Sting Operation went pretty smooth:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 09:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's in decent shape. Comments here would mostly be grammar and structure related; it seems well referenced and looks like it covers much of the substance. A copy-edit wouldn't hurt here either, but I'd be willing to pick it up as is in a couple of weeks, if no one else has done so before. There's a few harv errors in the article; just in case you're not already aware of it, this is a very handy script for checking these. Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I can wait for few weeks. Thank you for pointing out things which need to be fixed (especially birth date issue). I will look into it and will request copyedit at GOCE as well because I am not very good with grammar. I also thought about making the article about both siblings but I afraid that it would make it longer with more information on Tejapala. I will reconsider my decision and most probably make it about both siblings. Great inputs. :) -Nizil (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Do keep in mind that according to our guideline about article size, we don't really have to worry about a page needing to be split because of length until we're over 50kb of readable prose size. At the moment this article is at 21kb, so I wouldn't worry. The factor that does affect whether to make a single article about the two people is the degree of overlap in the content about them, which of course you know better than I do. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for pointing it out. I will check: what I can find about Tejapala and what need to be expanded in the current article to include information on Tejapala. If the expansion is not significant, I will make it about both siblings. Many things are already common for both. e.g. Ancestry and family. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look forward to your review:-) And, thanks for pointing me to the script! &#x222F; WBG converse 06:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Durham Fire Department Page Deletion
Hi, I created and was working on expanding the Durham Fire Department article. In the proposed deletion vote it seems that the fact I was still fleshing out the content was why it was deleted. Could you copy the article over to my sandbox in its most recent form so I can continue to work on it and get it up to snuff? Thanks. ForDisplayOnly (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored it to User:ForDisplayOnly/Durham Fire Department. However, please keep in mind that there was fairly clear consensus that the department was not independently notable. So you need to either develop this towards merging it somewhere, or provide unequivocal evidence of notability (which would necessarily have to be sources over and above those that were produced at the AfD, since those have already been analyzed). Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! In retrospect I should have worked on the page in my sandbox more prior to creating it on the main site.  It still needed significantly more material and sources synthesized into it, leaving the article as it stood very much a stub in need of expanding on.  I was not aware of the intensity of curation of new articles.  I appreciate you salvaging what was done so far so I can get it where it ought to be to meet standards here. ForDisplayOnly (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Vanamonde93!


Happy New Year! Vanamonde93, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year Vanamonde93!
Happy New Year! Hello Vanamonde93: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ  15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Orangemike
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BorgQueen •  Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Addshore



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD:
 * G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is db-disambig; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
 * R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion).  This is db-redircom; the text is unchanged.
 * G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use db-blankdraft.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
 * Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news
 * Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length . All accounts must have a password:
 * At least 8 characters in length
 * Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the [//github.com/wikimedia/password-blacklist Password Blacklist library])
 * Different from their username
 * User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
 * Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
 * Copyvio-revdel now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration
 * Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
 * Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

 * Whoa, thanks, . I was not expecting these. Vanamonde (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Creat a new article
Hi, I am trying to creat a new article named "MJ Freeway". I have sources https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarabrittanysomerset/2018/09/20/mj-freeway-makes-a-comeback-with-10-million-in-series-c-financing/#728d53060098 http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/24/how-techies-are-profiting-from-the-booming-pot-business.html http://fortune.com/2013/03/21/yes-we-cannabis/ http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/02/13/marijuana-an-industry-shaped-curiously-enough-by-compliance/ https://www.wired.com/2014/04/high-tech/ http://money.cnn.com/video/smallbusiness/2013/03/21/sbiz-marijuana-software-business.cnnmoney http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/07/medical-marijuana-industry-growing-billion-dollar-business/2018759/ http://www.inc.com/profile/mj-freeway https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/233877

Will you please help me to create this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur Bhatt Shiv (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you have created a draft at Draft:MJ Freeway. Unfortunately, the version you created violated our copyright policy, because it copy-pasted directly from one of your sources, and therefore I have deleted it. Some of your sources look okay. I would therefore recommend trying again, using only those sources that satisfy our guideline about reliable sources, and using your own words to convey the information. I would also recommend using the WP:AFC process to create your article. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Will you please help me to create this article perfectly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur Bhatt Shiv (talk • contribs) 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I do not have the time for that at the moment. You will receive helpful feedback on your work at WP:AFC: if that isn't enough for you, you could try asking for help at the teahouse. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019
I am not sure about this but the GA submissions from MaranoFan and Lee Vilenski, who are in the top three currently does not meet the scoring criteria. Both the users worked through the articles during 2018, before the competition even began. Please let me know if I have made a mistake.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to check all of the GA submissions at some point, and will get back to you then; it will likely be a few days. or one of the other judges may take a decision about them before that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gadget to measure prose size
Could you add a link to the gadget, as you offered here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Mathglot that tool is linked here Did_you_know section 2 a. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ta, Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and a happy new year to you too, . Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some nice quotes there, thanks for sharing, . Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanitha Mathil
Hi, I wonder if you could help. I was reviewing this article for DYK and I'm concerned about a sentence in the first paragraph that I have tagged "clarification needed". I already removed the text once, but it was reverted. Can you check the text and the source, as it doesn't make sense. Also somebody's changing kilometres to metres all the time - why is that? Whispyhistory (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I can't speak to why an editor might be changing kilometers, but since they haven't reverted again, I think you don't need to worry about it. I agree that the text you have tagged could use some rewriting; it's written from a perspective that assumes too much knowledge of the situation; but I'm afraid I'm too busy to look into it at the moment, partly because I don't know too much about it. It will have to wait for a couple of days, though maybe will be able to help. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Whispyhistory, I will open a talk page post so that we don't end up pinging Van.
 * Has the page been nominated for DYK? I didn't find any notices on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'll check later too. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Help!
I made a proposal here, but all the permutations and combinations have been rejected by another editor and so, I thought that someone experienced can only add it. Please add what is proposed there to the article in a way that is acceptable according to the rules. It was copied from the List of fatwas article, from the section titled, "Fatwas against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and ISIS". I also wrote about the Trump administration withdrawing aid citing its dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter-terrorism, but it has been removed as can be seen here. Please modify and add that back to the article in a way that others will accept it, according to the rules. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If one of your additions has been reverted in good faith, the proper thing to do is to go to the talk page of the article, explain why you want to add the material, and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS there. If you cannot do so, the material shouldn't be changed. I have no interest in that article at the moment, and I'm not going to do your job for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding remark at WP:AN
Hello Vanamonde93, You mentioned that my account was "a tad suspicious." I'm a total novice here, so I need to know what is it about my account that looks suspicious? I'm not taking issue with what you wrote, I just need to know. As I sit here, I feel human, but I suppose I might be imagining it. Please let me know. Thank you! Yankeepapa13 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies if you were offended, but very simply accounts which are registered long before they make an edit cause some raised eyebrows, because they are sometimes sleeper accounts. And that's more or less all I want to say, per WP:BEANS, but rest assured if you're just a low activity editor, it's not a big deal. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, 7&6=thirteen! Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

T.L. Williams deleted page
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Truth in advertising, I am both the author and subject of the T.L. Williams page, which was recently deleted. The reason I appealing for its restoration has to do with what I believe are factual errors that contributed to your rationale for deleting the page. First, one reviewer noted that one of the three title list on the author website had only sold 3 volumes on Amazon. This is completely erroneous in that thousand of books have been sold on Amazon, B&N, Baker and Taylor, Kobo, Apple Store etc. In addition one of your reviewers indicated this was probably just a vanity page to sell books. If you had looked at my website http://www.tl-williams.com you would find dozens of editorial reviews, prin, radio and tv interviews from the likes of NPR, FOX, NBC etc. Finally, the two writers organizations from whom I have received awards were characterized as clubs for authors. This is a mischaracterization. They are serious writers groups that offer international book award competitions. I believe that if you look at this page again in this light you will find that it has merit and should be restore. By the way the fourth book in the Logan Alexander series is due out in March. Thanks for your consideration of this request.--Wmsterry (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this with me, rather than trying to undo this yourself. There's a few things at play here. First, I did not make a sudden personal decision to delete the article; I deleted it following this discussion. The points made there were fairly substantive. Nobody was saying only three copies had been sold; the argument was that only three different books had been sold, which is somewhat different. Regardless, while high sales may be an indicator of notability, they are not in and of themselves a criterion that may be used to establish notability. Similarly, no matter what the precise characterization of the awards you received, said awards are clearly not prominent enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Second, even if I agreed with your argument, I cannot unilaterally overturn the decision made at AfD. I could reopen the deletion discussion, and relist it, allowing you to say at that discussion what you have said here. As the subject of the page, though, you would have to convince others of your argument; your own opinion cannot be given much weight. Finally, there is the possibility of recreating the page. Any user may rewrite that page at any time: you, however, are strongly discouraged from trying to do so, per WP:AUTOBIO. As described there, an option you have is to write a draft and submit it to WP:AFC; however, autobiographies are often subject to harsh review, and so it is possible you will find that process discouraging.  Given all of this, what would you like to do? (Further links you may wish to read: WP:NAUTHOR, WP:COI). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and the clarification of the process. I think for now I'll look into the links you cited above, and see if there is merit in approaching this another way or just accept the findings of AfDWmsterry (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Feel free to post here if you have further questions. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

History of India
Could you please explain what's wrong with this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Republic_of_India&diff=878569899 ?Sahil (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I misread my watchlist; you made that edit during an ongoing conflict at History of India. That said, the wording you added is completely redundant to the rest of the paragraph, and so doesn't add much value in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ryan Frazier
Hello. Could you restore the article about Frazier to my userspace for a day or so, just so I can copy and paste a source or two to keep Frazier in this list. Without a Wikipedia article and without any sources, there's no indication that he's a real person, let alone an African-American Republican. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There were only a handful of reliable sources in that article anyways, so I went ahead and checked them myself, and added a couple that mentioned both race and political affiliation to that list. That seemed to be less bother than userfying and letting you do that, but if you still want a copy, let me know and I'd be happy to oblige. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

An acceptable outcome
Removing the Friedman reference from the lede seems a good way of dealing with that. My MOS:COMMONNAME objection was a technical reading disregarding any of the context around it. But I'd concur with you that, considering the totality of what's being said there, it's undue. Thx. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FWIW, I think you were correct in saying that dealing with the "Nobel Prize" vs "Nobel Memorial Prize" issue was quite unnecessary in that context. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ishi in Two Worlds
My suspicion is that the book in and of itself is not really notable in the way that Ishi himself is. Could be you'll prove me wrong. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't done enough research to write an article yet, but there's several indications that it's independently notable: it's been cited 459 times, Salon says its still in print and has sold more than a million copies, there's a scholarly review here, another here, and some decent commentary here (apologies if you can't access any of those). I'll do further digging if necessary, but even these would be enough to satisfy NBOOK, I'd say. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ram Rath Yatra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ram Rath Yatra 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 Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Phillip Thompson
Hello, could you please move the deleted article to my user space? I was the proposer of the deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User:Onetwothreeip/Phillip Thompson. Please note that given the outcome of the discussion, you'd need to add substantive new evidence of notability before returning this to the mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I only intend on re-publishing the article if they become unquestionably notable, such as by being elected in the upcoming election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ram Rath Yatra
The article Ram Rath Yatra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ram Rath Yatra 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 Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
Just a note on your comment at RPP, but the problem at insect has been that the IP hasn't been engaging in relevant talk discussion at all, just reverting. There's basically been no way to engage the IP despite attempts to get them to the talk page. Warnings don't seem to work either since the IP is dynamic (and I'm not sure how well notifications and IP messages work if at all in such cases). The talk page discussion has mostly fizzled out and failed to gain consensus for the disputed content anyways, but this is a pretty standard case of a disruptive IP considering the lack of interaction and just reverting with basically no edit summary, etc. I'd rather get them to the talk page at this point, and semi protection would do that. If the IP were actually trying to gain consensus, then I agree full protection would be more appropriate, but we're not in that situation either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that the IP should be trying to reach consensus on the talk page. However, they are not guilty of ignoring talk page consensus, because there isn't one; you and FeydHuxtable are arguing incompatible points of view, and FeydHuxtable has also once added the content in question. The IP has added it twice. As such we're not at the point where I can lock the IP out of the article. If this behavior continues, we might be at that point some days down the line. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Can
you please write a lead for Rajendralal Mitra and conduct a GAR, per our earlier conversations ? Also, how good is BGR-34 for a GA? And, do you know of any way to access the details of the case described over here? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible I wasn't entirely clear last time: I'm happy to write a lead or review the article, not do both. Given the length of the queues at GAN, I think you might prefer that I reviewed it. Also, there's a couple of cn tags that need to be addressed before a review. I don't know much about that controversy, and at the moment I haven't much time to look into it; perhaps the folks at the medical project could help. BGR-34 isn't bad, but as a medical article it needs to comply with MEDRS, which at the moment it doesn't. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok; I will happily write the lead:-)
 * As to BGR 34; it's about a complete sham-drug whose sole notability is due to it's commercialization; despite a complete lack of clinical trials or any semi-decent research and thus, became the poster child for the dubious research; oft-indulged by Ministry of AYUSH.
 * AFAIS, MEDRS ain't any applicable here. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you there. MEDRS may be irrelevant when covering background and/or political controversy; but it definitely applies to claims about efficacy, which are a biomedical topic. Of course, medical literature reviews may not exist, given the nature of drug testing in alternative medicine. And good news sources are much better than nothing. But a search of scholarly literature needs to be made. That's partly why I suggest asking for advice at the medical wikiproject; this is outside my comfort zone. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking Guy........I have searched the scholarly databases, in entirety and there's nothing worth-wile. Publications in 2 notoriously-famed predatory journals and another by the same group in a borderline journal (the criticisms are already, in the article after every line). If you read the article, you will also see that several sources have searched the databases in a similar fashion and came to similar conclusions. They pretty much generated the drug out of a vacuum. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you there. MEDRS may be irrelevant when covering background and/or political controversy; but it definitely applies to claims about efficacy, which are a biomedical topic. Of course, medical literature reviews may not exist, given the nature of drug testing in alternative medicine. And good news sources are much better than nothing. But a search of scholarly literature needs to be made. That's partly why I suggest asking for advice at the medical wikiproject; this is outside my comfort zone. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking Guy........I have searched the scholarly databases, in entirety and there's nothing worth-wile. Publications in 2 notoriously-famed predatory journals and another by the same group in a borderline journal (the criticisms are already, in the article after every line). If you read the article, you will also see that several sources have searched the databases in a similar fashion and came to similar conclusions. They pretty much generated the drug out of a vacuum. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Le Guin /* Adaptations of her work */
What seems to be the problem? I have provided clear references for my edits. On what basis do you keep deleting them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullsterkur (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the talk page; please respond there, so that the discussion is kept in one place. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation
Thank you for looking into my complaint. Yuchtown stated he hasnt touched the page in months.. agreed but when he did he changed the content of the page despite the sources were valid. see below.

(cur | prev) 12:17, 3 August 2018‎ Yuchitown (talk | contribs)‎. . (57,749 bytes) +332‎. . (don't delete cited material to push your POV) (undo | thank)

He has learned the point and has not changed it again so i'm good.. thank you, Ramapoughnative (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Enterprisey • JJMC89
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg BorgQueen
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svgprisey

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
 * Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news
 * A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

As discussed. GoldenRing (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Countersigned as you were posting this, thanks, GR. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Balhae and Balhae controversies
The user Hatchiko disputing the article Balhae and Balhae controversies got banned. Can you please put the articles on semi-protected mode for autoconfirmed users? Koraskadi (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know: I've downgraded protection. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Motion
Hi Vanamonde93, a motion has been proposed at the Arbitration Request you filed. For The Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mention
Had to mention you at Arbitration/Requests/Case, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I thought you might have to. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nominations for Theodora Kroeber and Ishi in Two Worlds
I completed a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Theodora Kroeber, and noted two minor questions. Please respond there when you are able. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih
For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Helpful stalkers required
Can anyone help me figure out why Template:Persecution of Bengali Hindus doesn't display the "view - talk - edit" links that most sidebars do? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this has to do with it, but it was missing the "name" field, and now the VTE appears on the bottom. Is that what you were seeking?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, I am the least template savvy person around, but it looks like 78.26 has answered a years old question from you. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I can't for the life of me see why that would fix it, but it does seem to have fixed it. Good grief. So much for following up on stuff. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think of it as a lack of follow-through, think of it as taking patience to whole new levels.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Fulvous owl
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

an/i
Your clearly not a bad guy and we seem to have been talking past each other. Olive branch and peace in our time. I think the tread has reached its last breath anyway :) Ceoil  (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think it has. The ball is in Johnbod's court now (and of course there's the other part of that mess to be dealt with, but that's not for me). Thanks for understanding. Olive branch gratefully accepted. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Dunno about you, but every time I venture onto AN/I, which is not often, I spend a week shuttering. Not a collegial atmosphere for calmly working out differences! ps, always great to see people who appreciate the true greatness of Starship Troopers. Ceoil  (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Gaspar Jiménez
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Emilio Milián
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)