User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 3

vandalism?
you just sent a 'warning' with regard to a small yet important addition to your albeit vague page persecution of Muslims. Currently making a vast research, and despite many Wikipedia's errors, the additions made constitute Facts (which appear also in Wikipedia itself, but in other sections!) This was a small but important piece of information (please check details on Wikipedia), which you call editing or worse 'vandalism' What's going on with Wikipedia ? Care to explain Vanamonde93 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.62.60.127 (talk) 12:31 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * IP, you inserted the phrase "mentally unstable" without a source, to a contentious page. Of course this looks like vandalism. If you don't want to be reverted again, simply use a reliable source for your text. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:43 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * sorry but unsure what you mean by "use reliable source" ? quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.62.60.127 (talk • contribs)
 * First, please don't blank the first part of the conversation. Second, I did explain, or rather, I linked you to an explanation. this link explains what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Aditya Soni
You asked what became of my proposal for a topic-ban on new articles in mainspace by Aditya Soni. It was archived. The answer is that nothing came of it. It wasn't approved. That is the answer to your question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hvar
Hello Vanamonde93,

We are local native citizens and we work in local company of this Island and Article was made by my friend Luana B. F. This is unique and it not published anywhere - thats why there is no source.

I added below few neutral external links (we are owner of those sites), but I didnt use any of content because we want unique content on wiki and dont wanna directly involve our bussiness (we made a list of nightclubs, we didnt put just ours).

This is first time we used wiki and we want to contribute to wiki in order to help our town and ofc indirectly our bussiness.


 * Dealt with when posted. Dating for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dinanath Batra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujarati. 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) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

bot may not fix that.
diff, just wanted to bring to your notice that a bot may not be able to correct that, here is the version where the error was clearly visible to any reader and that is why I had fixed it. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * AP I am aware, which is why I fixed it instead of blindly reverting you. Thanks anyhow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just learning wikipedia... Jocelyn Hale 2007/2009
Hi Vanamonde,

The change I made is actually already attributed; the news article on the leadership transition ("retrieved in 2009"?) is dated 2007, click & verify: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/07/20/loftdirector

Or, you can also check out the Loft history page which is also attributed for several other facts: https://www.loft.org/about/history/

Do I need to go back and re-change this or could you accept my change after your last edit? Thanks for helping me out.

Sincerely, -Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamin (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, you're right; you can change it back. I would also suggest changing the date on the reference to the correct one, and leaving an edit-summary explaining what you are doing, so that you do not appear to be making a test edit. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Paraclete
Hello, I am not familiar with WP messenger, but I'm responding to you deleting my post. Please show me a source from that article where it proves that The Paraclete is the holy spirit. There is no such source, it's just an interpretation by the trinitarians.

My source is the bible.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheParakletos (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The reason I reverted you was because although the sentence was sourced, you reversed its meaning without providing an explanation or a different source, behavior which looks decidedly dodgy. If your intent was positive, that is good. I am not aware of the content issues myself; what I would suggest is bringing it up on the talk page of the article, and seeing what people have to say. If you get consensus for your change, you're welcome to reinstate it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-promotion policy
Hello, Would including the link to my Galapagos photos without mentioning my name still be considered self-promotional? Something like "Galapagos photos free to use for non-commercial purposes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmauryLaporte (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * answered on talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply and tips!AmauryLaporte (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Undone change
Hi Vanamonde93, you recently undone one of my changes in Experiential education. I was actually updating a broken link so that reference could be linked to an existing working paper that I have right to. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcao123 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , you added the characters 'FF' in between two paragraphs. This looked like a classic case of test editing, and so you were reverted. If that was a mistake, I quite understand, but the revert was entirely justified. You are welcome to go ahead and fix the link. I would strongly recommend leaving an edit summary explaining what you were doing; that way, even if you make a mistake, people don't doubt you good faith. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You undid my changes on the Ottoman Architecture page
You say that the edit did not appear constructive. I listed the reasons for my edit in the talk page of the Ottoman architecture. I removed a section on Paradise Gardens because 1. it was not specific enough to Ottoman rather than Islamic architecture, and 2. it was not written like an encyclopedia article. For example, the section started off with a quote from the quran, and then detailed how paradise gardens next to mosques are done in accordance with the writings in the Quran. If you think that the section should remain, I am ok with that as long as you provide more reason than "the edit did not appear constructive" in the talk page there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryshuai (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I reverted you was that you removed well sourced content (see the last line you removed, for instance; it includes an academic publisher, and seems to be as good a source as you could get on the subject. Your edit summary did not match this removal, nor does your talk message; if there are problems with wording, fix them or bring them up, don't delete 8kb of text. If the text is not relevant, you still need to get some sort of consensus on the talk, because it is sourced, and seems superficially relevant. I do not edit that page regularly; your edit was picked up by the automated tool Stiki. Please discuss this with regular contributors to that page. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE September 2014 bling

 * Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

M. S. Golwalkar
Dear Sir, it would be highly appreciated if you and Kautilya wait for a discussion on article talk page before removing established (was in the article was long) referenced content that seems a little contentious. The article was read and copy-edited by four editors recently and there was no objection to the text or the reference and imho the replaced text is selective and not in neutral tone. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra T 01:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't repeat yourself. Go see the talk page. An opinion piece is not a reliable source. You needn't post here about a page that you know damn well will be on my watchlist for now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Iran-Contra edit
Dear Vanamonde93,

My edit about US Reservists being ordered to leave their weapons on the field in Honduras to be picked up by waiting Contras is based upon what I was told by my brother-in-law, a former MP, who was sent to Honduras as a reservist. It was his personal relaying of what took place which is the basis of my added details.

I stand by the accuracy of my two sentences, and suspect that others could confirm same if a "request for cite" notation were to be included at the end of my two sentences.

Perhaps the following amendment could be made to the first sentence: "It has been reported that one method..."

I was appalled by what he told me after his return, and was inspired to review and suggest an edit to the Iran-Contra listing by the following article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/probe-of-silencers-leads-to-web-of-pentagon-secrets/2014/10/12/12c8d110-4fea-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?tid=pm_pop

I do think that this type of information should be exposed to the light of day.

Thank you for your consideration, and with best regards,

Terry Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlhallatty (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. Covert United States involvement in regime change
I went ahead and removed the Syrian Civil War from the aforementioned template. I had noticed that you reverted a previous attempt at removing the current situation in Syria because foreign involvement is backed up by sources. Despite that, I still decided to carry out the edit because I don't feel the international community's involvement is particularly "covert", as it is a widely known fact that the US supports the secular rebels in overthrowing Assad. Another thing to keep in mind is that its inclusion on this template minimizes all the different facets of this revolution by chalking it up to a foreign-backed insurgency; it is too complex to be summarized with such simplicity. If you disagree with the removal, we can take it to the template's talk page and try to form a consensus with its other major contributors. I think it would help to gather more perspectives on this subject. Kurtis (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making changes to my edits - when I am correcting them.
Please stop making changes to my edits - when I am correcting them. You can not allow statements that are provocative as proven facts when they are merely allegations. Last edit I made - is quite generous - whereby I left most of the language with citations - but corrected a couple of verbiage. You can not state an allegation as a fact - an allegation although as citation - needs to be mentioned as such - "an allegation". Please do not revert my edits anymore without responding here first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmarathe (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions about article content belong on the article talk page - Talk:Shiv Sena - where Vanamonde93 has already opened a topic. --Neil N  talk to me 01:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * : Please stop making changes while the discussion is ongoing on the talk page Talk:Shiv Sena --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Mariota
Hello. I recently added information on Marcu Mariota's page. I forgot to sign in. It talked about his Twitter fan page. I think it fits the category wih his nicknames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashbrother (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Splashbrother, your statement may be valid, but I am not sure why you are contacting me, as I believe we have not interacted before, I have never edited that page, and I was certainly not the one who reverted you. Or am I missing something here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I reall des to the wrong person. Sorry about yhat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashbrother (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October Blitz award

 * Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Yes, it's been a while, I'd almost forgotten about that; it's nice to be appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Happy Halloween to you and yours as well! Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Emergency
hi i am new to editing wikipedia but i have good experience in computer technologies as i am myself an software guy .thanks for your message .i have seen many texts on wikipedia which are not sourced and are written for the purpose of vandalism.i have decided to give it a time.hope you will help me

regards ankur Krazylearner (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Krazylearner, greetings. I see that you have figured out the issue I reverted by yourself. I'm happy to help you with any issue that I am able; feel free to ask. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. AmritasyaPutra T 06:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita
Hello, Vanamonde! I'm helping to bring Cucurbita to FA status. I missed the work at Peer Review which has already been archived. The discussions are now on the talk page of the article. I have also just come across a discussion from August on the talk page of a botanist, Sminthopsis84 (at User talk:Sminthopsis84). I'll copy my original question here; Sminthopsis84 left it up to me. I saw you had been editing Indigenous peoples of the Americas, so I thought you might be able to answer my question:


 * I just wondered what you thought of the following sentence, which appears in the middle of the first paragraph in Cucurbita:


 * "The genus was part of the culture of almost every native peoples group from southern South America to southern Canada".


 * Specifically, I wondered about the phrase "every native peoples group". I know that "native peoples" is probably the right, modern, term, but still..."native peoples group" sounds a little odd. I wonder what the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas uses.

Does "every native peoples group" sound all right to you? Besides, "every group of native peoples", is there an acceptable alternative? CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * CorinneSD, greetings. I cringed at the phrase "every native peoples group" as well; apart from being clunky, it should have an apostrophe after "peoples," shouldn't it? In any case, your version seems fine; my personal choice would be "every community of indigenous peoples." My experience with that page is actually not all that extensive, my experience with the terminology slightly greater; so I will not feel in the least offended if you ask for other opinions. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I'm glad we agree about the clunkiness of that phrase. I actually like your phrase. I don't know what the finer points of meaning are with regard to the difference, if any, between "indigenous" and "native". I also wonder if "community" suggests a smaller group than "group", and whether "group" is a more boring word than "community"; I'll have to think about that. Since I don't know any editors who are well-versed in the area of native cultures of the Americas, I will have to do some looking to find one. Thanks again! CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Guatemalan Revolution
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New Amsterdam
I thought you might be able to address a concern I have about an edit made a little while ago to New Amsterdam. At 20:46 on 14 October 2014, an editor make some edits with an edit summary saying, "Edit punctuation and wording for consistency and clarity". I think the punctuation edits are fine, but, to me, the word change made to the section New Amsterdam added ambiguity. The editor changed "and where" to "... Here,...". Actually, both versions are ambiguous. Was it the mouth of the Hudson River where American Indian hunters supplied them with pelts, or was it Albany where American Indian hunters supplied them with pelts? I think that first sentence (or now, two sentences) of that section is awfully long and wordy. Can you figure out what was really meant, and perhaps make the sentences more concise, or break them up a bit? CorinneSD (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * CorinneSD, I took a look; you're right, it is poor construction. My instinct would be to say that the "here" refers to the trading post in Albany, because of the reference to pelts. I might be wrong; it does not help that there are no sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I can find an expert in colonial American history, I guess I'll have to do some research. CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not that expert, much though I wish I was. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here. I forgot to thank you for your reply. CorinneSD (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks a lot! Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Evolution of snake venom) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Evolution of snake venom, Vanamonde93!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Great contribution! You might include more images or diagrams of evolutionary relationships, venom delivery apparatuses, etc. to supplement the pictures of snakes (which to, a lay person will all look largely the same)."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Logo of Bharatiya Janata Party
Hi, Could you please upload a Flag/logo for the Bharatiya Janata Party article. There was a logo but unfortunately it was delete due to license issue. Therefore, please upload valid license logo for BJP make sure its in SVG format and uploaded in commons section, so that it can be put in other languages as well. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , this is not unfortunately my area of expertise. I avoid uploading pictures unless they are strictly my own work because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the relevant rules and laws. I would suggest you ask for help on commons to get this done. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RSS Membership
Hi, I changed the RSS membership to 40 million with the guardian source instead of 7 million, because I checked the academic source at Google books and discovered actually no where it sates RSS has "7 million member" rather it states it has "several million member". Now word several million could be 5, 20, or 100 million. But, in Guarding source it clearly states that RSS has 40 million members. Nevertheless if you have any doubt regarding this issue pls go thorough the book once, as of now let guarding source be there. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kkm010, if that's what the book says, fine. I am just wary of using a media source for a figure like this one, because an academic is so much more likely to be thorough on the subject, whereas a newspaper researcher may easily get their figures from, well, Wikipedia, for one. So I'll try and find an academic source. Till then, the guardian can stay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why this discussion is happening here. It belongs on the article talk page.  I updated the membership figure from 5 million to 7 million here .  Chetan Bhatt wrote 2.5-5 million in 2001, and he wrote 7 million in 2013.  I am pretty sure it is a reliable figure.  Google Books is not showing that particular page at this time, but that is not a reason to distrust the source. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, kautiliya3, I check two to three times, but i didn't find the word "7 or seven million" is mentioned however, it do states it has "several million", I also downloaded that book from torrent and went through it, no where the book states RSS has 7 million members. If you have any doubt about my word pls kindly go though the book once. I'm damn sure the figure has not been mentioned specifically. The Guardian source is far more specific it clearly states its membership, however, I do acknowledge academic source is far better than a media source. since we don't have an academic source where rss membership has been specifically stated, it is better to keep guardian source. In the mean time we must find an academic source and go through the book/journal at atleast once before putting it as source. Also we must keep in mind it has to be recent publication 2013 or 2014. Thank You--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, if the figure is not in the book, then it is my fault. I must have given the wrong citation.  But I definitely did see 7 million figure in some article of Chetan Bhatt.
 * Here is another way to estimate it. Several sources mention that RSS currently has about 40,000 shakhas (local branches).  Each branch is supposed to have 50-100 members.  So, that gives a figure of 4 million.  I guess the Guardian reporter made some calculation error and came up with a figure of 40 million. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar!

 * AshLin, Many thanks indeed! It's always nice to be remembered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratlations, Van. You are a Vanamonde indeed! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reza Aslan
Hi, Vanamonde. I posted an event relevant to subsection "Criticisms" under Reza Aslan. It was some of his responses to criticisms. You twice removed it, questioning the veracity of the sources: Buzzfeed, Foxnews.com, and The Blaze. After further review, I agree that The Blaze should not be included. However, regarding the other two:

- BuzzFeed, from the first Wikipedia line, "is an internet news media company." This article (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw) is simply an archive of photo records of Aslan's past Twitter posts. While Buzzfeed may have had a less than favorable reputation during its earlier years, recently they've fired journalists for plagiarism. Imagine what they'd do someone faking photos and committing criminal libel, which is what would've needed to happen for this link to not be credible, given the little if any commentary on it. The most egregious thing the article writes is the headline calling Aslan a "Jerk on Twitter," which, as the FoxNews source shows, Aslan called himself a "#TwitterJerk." This

- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/02/cool-headed-academic-scholar-real-potty-mouth-on-twitter/) is understandably a controversial source, but the web-site isn't Fox News Channell itself. Its parent News Corp is the second largest news media company in the world, has a staff of several award-winning journalists, and interviews world leaders. Further, this article is posted under US news, not Opinion.

I agree to strike The Blaze, but the BuzzFeed link is perfectly legitimate and I encourage you to further consider the FoxNews source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaviqAhmed (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TaviqAhmed, the question of reliability goes a little beyond just whether they faked something or not; reliable sources are also our guide to what content is notable enough to be mentioned, and so there's questions about how much editorial oversight they are receiving, and so forth; personally, I do not feel Buzzfeed to be reliable enough to add critical material on a BLP. I appreciate that you dropped the Blaze piece, and seem willing to engage constructively. However, after being reverted multiple times, you really should discuss this on the talk page first. You will find people not unreasonable. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

V. R. Krishna Iyer
Hi Van, the V. R. Krishna Iyer page is a serious copyvio from the first cited reference. Shall we work on it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, if it's a copy-vio you should probably blank it immediately. I'd be happy to help paraphrase, if that is what you need; I'm a little too busy to get into research for that at this point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Jai Bhim Comrade
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE November copy editing drive awards

 * Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Evolution of snake venom
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Father, Son, and Holy War
Hello! Your submission of Father, Son, and Holy War 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! Skr15081997 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Father, Son, and Holy War
Mike V •  Talk  19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion
Thanks for email. You didn't give me a link to where the article restoration is being requested, but presumably you could comment there? For now, I've protected the page and hidden your the history, which should at least flag up that there is a problem. It will now require an admin to unprotect the title and unhide the history. <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimfbleak, thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I neglected to provide a link; it was done here, and I responded there as well, in addition to emailing you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Article on Central Intelligence Agency
Thank you for your note. No change was made by me. I began an edit of the "Purpose" section, paragraph one. I deleted it, accidentally out of habit hit the "save edit" button, and it saved - nothing. Which left the original text intact. The index of changes is an artifact of the programming and nothing more.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulseyLaw (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * HulseyLaw, I'm not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the program, but a combined diff of our two edits shows no difference, so I must clearly have reverted something? Anyhow, if you didn't mean to make the edit, and I reverted it, then no harm done. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your NAC of an AFD
This was absolutely not an appropriate non-admin close. There were outstanding opinions in favour of deletion - the fact that it was withdrawn is irrelevant. Please don't close deletion discussions if you don't understand basic guidelines.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stalwart, |the guidelines for non-admin closures includes "speedy keep" as an appropriate instance. The first point of the linked guideline includes "withdrawn by the nomminator." I came to this AfD to vote on it; I found that the last comment was a withdrawal, reread the guideline, and then performed the close. In view of your objection, I self-reverted; but I would appreciate it if you showed me the guideline that I missed or mis-interpreted, rather than simply saying "absolutely inappropriate." Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SK The nominator withdraws the nomination .... and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. Both conditions have to be met for a speedy keep closure. - NQ (talk)  11:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, then, that some clarification in the guideline might be appropriate; it could easily be read, as I did, as "Nom withdraw" OR "Nome gives no good reason AND nobody else supports." Boolean logic; the downsides of having a science background, I suppose. Some commas in the guideline would fix the issue. Apologies for the inconvenience. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruption Indian National Congress Article
Hi Vanamonde93, User:Gollymemolly is removing ideology. Please participate in the discussion in the talk page.--<font color="#9966CC" face="Comic Sans MS">♥ Kkm010 ♥ <font color="#FF4F00">♪ Talk ♪  ߷  <font color="#4CBB17">♀ Contribs ♀ 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Xmas

 * Thanks a lot, JJ. May you and yours be merry as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE request for BJP
I'm ready to take a look at BJP. Should I wait for someone to take the GOCE request or should I take it myself? GA prose requirements are not strict after all. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be quite happy if you took it; I'm worried less about prose and more about formatting and structure issues, especially with the various embedded tables. Thanks for keeping it in mind, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Finished it. I've made a couple of bold edits too while at it, added an in-article comment and clarify tag. When you get time, you may want to briefly check each edit out; I think you should start from this one, just after doing the lead. I must say, very nice work, copy editing it was a good experience. Also, now even I'm a bit anxious as to when it will get reviewed. Regarding the tables/lists, I think they seem fine from what I know about WP:EMBED. Anyway...happy holidays :) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, friend. Started a TP section about the redundant prose. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Atal Bihari Vajpayee on your to-do list?
I think if there's anybody who can bring this vital article to B-class or higher, it's you. I know there's probably lot in your workload, but I'm asking if this can be added to your long-term plans. It shouldn't be hard since most of it is nothing new for you anyway. What say you? I've added it to my watchlist and am willing to help in any way I can. Best wishes, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugog Nizdast I've had my eye on that for a bit, haven't found the time. I will definitely add it to my long-term plans, especially because I have spent a lot of time with relevant literature, if not with the sources used therein. However, I'm going to have questionable internet access for a while now, so we shall see. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bharatiya Janata Party
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bharatiya Janata Party 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 Kautilya3 -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK review
Hi, it has been a week since I replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Popcorn Khao! Mast Ho Jao. Please tell me if further improvements are required. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Skr15081997 my apologies; the real world intruded somewhat. I will do so forthwith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Caribbean Legion
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian National Congress
Re: yr revert of my edit

It is the 3rd party's claim that INC is affiliated to it. Please provide a reliable source that INC is officially affiliated to the progressive alliance before reinserting. see Gollymemolly (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gollymemolly blocked as part of the IAC sockfarm. (for my own referenc) Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)