User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation PBHISTORY, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour party. 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) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cissie Cahalan
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for A Wizard of Earthsea
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Kelsey grammer
Hello I've only added correct information. I haven't sworn or abused anyone. Keep getting bullied online. In regards to Kelsey's film if he only spoke about it in an interview how can I back up that information, Thanks Crescent15 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Crescent15: even if he only gave an interview about it, I am sure sources are available. Even poorly known movies have reviews somewhere, and if he gave an interview, then you should be able to cite the review. Please read WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW for more information. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for tip
Thanks for the tip. So far you have been the kindest person I've come across on Wikipedia. Crescent15 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A Wizard of Earthsea...
Just to say thanks for your work on the Earthsea novel; it was one of my favourites as a child, and it is nice to see it reaching GA! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course! It was one of mine, too. Vanamonde (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you willing to discuss your desire to give me a "longish" block?
I note that I wrote WP:ADMINBESTPRACTICE. I am willing to have a discussion with you about the WP:ANEW report. jps (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your email. I will note, though, that you changed the wording of that essay in a way that has a bearing on this case, soon after posting here. Vanamonde (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I think that the previous wording was added after the publication of the essay and doesn't get across exactly what it means to be blocked. jps (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You warn, James J. Lambden continues to edit war



 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

It doesn't look like he has learned. In spite of being warned by you and others!

jps (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Indo-Pakistan POV issues.
Hi Vanamonde! It looks like we're both trying to mediate POV issues at India and state-sponsored terrorism as well as the corresponding AfD.

What are we supposed to do when a collection of editors refuse to seek consensus? Sheriff and Mar have been dumping propaganda, conspiracy theories, and walls-of-WP:OR into this article for a full 24 hours. I know from their perspective, these are "good faith" edits, but from a global perspective they're pretty obviously bad.

Sorry for imposing, I figured you might have some experience with dealing with this kind of dispute. I'm losing faith in the consensus system because I keep seeing obvious WP:PROMO articles pass AfD via filibuster. Jergling (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. South Asian articles do tend to attract a particularly clueless form of POV pushing, but as you can probably imagine, there is no magic-bullet solution to this problem. One of the things you can do is to invite more scrutiny, by posting an WP:RFC, or at WP:ORN. Additionally, there are certainly several sockpuppets active at the AfD; researching their likely masters and bringing them to admin attention would also be helpful (I don't have the time for that at the moment). As a last resort, if the original research continues unabated, posting at WP:AE might be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I take objection to the strong words used above. I can speak for myself - and as far as I'm concerned, my edits are not propaganda as long as they are covered reliably. I also hope Vanamonde93, as an impartial admin, if you could take a look at this move discussion which is a blatant attempt at unreliable POV.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Indian canvass socks
Please stop deleting the canvassing notice on the AFD as its clear that many Indian nationalists have alerted many Indian users to this afd and this obviously means the whole afd is now flawed and full of ultra nationalist chest thumpers from India. 82.132.231.131 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I get bashed at my RFA for being pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian, and I get bashed afterwards for being pro-Indian and anti-Pakistani. Wonderful, just wonderful...at least it shows I must be doing something right, I suppose. Vanamonde (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Classic deflection. Just stop deleting my notice I have not voted I just saw the intense canvassing hence why I put it in bold. 82.132.231.131 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A significant milestone indeed, I would emphasise that it must mean you're doing something right. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Request
Can you semi-protect the pages Nikki Grahame, Now That's What I Call Music! discography and Kelly Clarkson? Because Special:Contributions/79.68.250.215 still distruptive editing. 183.171.180.92 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected all three pages, because there seemed to be significant disruption on all of them. A single user is probably best dealt with at WP:AIV, although there seems to be some IP-hopping here. I will also note that the semi-protection will lock you out as well. Vanamonde (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Kelly McGillis
HI Vanamonde93. Would you mind taking another look at Kelly McGillis when you get the chance? The IP you blocked seems to be back with two new IP accounts and is making the same edits despite being reverted by multiple editors and bots. A request for page protection was made at WP:RPP, but it hasn't been acted upon yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page: there isn't much point blocking anybody, as they seem able to switch IPs easily. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking another look and protecting the article. Hopefully, the IP will realize that a brute force approach has almost no chance of succeeding and try and discuss things instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Lareal Watt
A bit of help? What do I do with it? John from Idegon (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon: Well, you seem to have done the right thing by sending it to RfD. The thing is as a redirect it isn't eligible for any of the CSD criteria: there's a fairly legitimate argument to be made that since we do not have an article on the individual, her name should redirect to an article which could plausibly cover the incident she is notable for. Now the article does not actually cover this information, as you have stated at the RfD, but given the circumstances I was not comfortable speedy-deleting it. I hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My concern was the worry expressed at the AfD.  There was some discussion on the school article talk page too. But I think the redirect should go away just fine....once I figured out which bowl of alphabet soup to stick it in.  Creating a redirect after a very clear decision to delete, especially for BLP reasons, seems quite bad faith to me. John from Idegon (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The alphabet soup certainly takes a while to learn: I'm still learning it myself, despite being an admin and whatnot :). It is possible that the redirect was created in a fit of pique, but (as I said above) since it is a defensible redirect, I'd rather AGF: it's at RfD now, so let's just let it go. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation PBFORTUNE
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation PBFORTUNE you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jacobo Árbenz
Hello, Vanamonde -- I apologize for taking so long to complete the copy-edit of Jacobo Árbenz. I will get to it now. I noticed that an edit was made after I took a break from editing the article:. I wonder which word you prefer, "invasion" or "conquest". They're fairly close in meaning, but to me, the former points to the initial arrival of the Spanish conquistadors while the second points to something completed. Also, "conquest" is not as common a word in English as "invasion". On the other hand, "invasion" might (a) be a more modern word and (b) carry a bit more of a negative connotation than "conquest". What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I did notice the edit, but hadn't gotten around to looking at it properly yet. After some thought, I think "invasion" is more appropriate in this context, because it is referring to the fact that indigenous people lost their lands; this begun with the arrival of the Spanish, rather than after they completed their conquest. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. – Corinne (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Usually, when I have questions or concerns that I am unable to resolve on my own, I prepare them all at once when I have finished copy-editing the article. Since it's late and I will take a break soon, I thought I'd leave one question/concern for you to think about:

In the section Jacobo Árbenz, we find the following two sentences:


 * Arévalo's ideology was reflected in the new constitution that the Guatemalan assembly ratified soon after his inauguration, which was one of the most progressive in Latin America. It mandated suffrage for all but illiterate women, a decentralization of power, and provisions for a multiparty system.

Then, after a short sentence, we read:


 * Arévalo implemented social reforms, including minimum wage laws, increased educational funding, near-universal suffrage (excluding illiterate women), and labor reforms.

Do you see that there is some repetition here? The second of the first two sentences describes three things that the new constitution mandated. The last sentence describes several things that Arévalo implemented.

Is it important to keep these two things separate (constitution mandated, Arévalo implemented)? If it is important to mention that the new constitution was "one of the most progressive in Latin America", is it necessary to give those three examples? (Is there a WP article on the Guatemalan constitution to which this could be linked for more information?)

By mentioning what Arévalo implemented so soon after describing the new constitution, the reader might wonder whether the "social reforms" that Arévalo implemented were all mandated by the new constitution, or whether he was acting on his own, or some combination of these.

Do you feel certain that all these things Arévalo implemented were social reforms? Aren't some of them economic and some political?

Just some things to think about. – Corinne (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you're quite right, it is a little repetitious. The important thing is to make it clear that those reforms/positions were part of both the constitution and of Arevalo's program, because that is not a) self-evident, and b) always the case when a constitution is written after such a revolution. Repeating the text is not necessary. I'm trying to think of an elegant way to phrase this: perhaps something beginning "Arevalo's ideology was reflected in the constitution as well as the reforms he initiated...." but I'll think on this. Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the first two sentences are actually worded quite well. How about if we just add "these and other" before "implemented" and remove the repeated reference to sufferage in the last sentence? --


 * Arévalo implemented social these and other reforms, including minimum wage laws, increased educational funding, near-universal suffrage (excluding illiterate women), and labor reforms.


 * Perhaps change "implemented" to "carried out" (a little connection with the new constitution):


 * During his term in office, Arévalo implemented carried out these and other reforms, including minimum wage laws, increased educational funding, and labor reforms. – Corinne (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That works, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last version, I went ahead and made the change, but used "Once in office" instead of "During his term in office". I have pretty much completed the copy-edit. I may read through the article once more tomorrow (I've read through the first half of the article again already). I have a few questions about a few sentences for you:

1) The last sentence in the third paragraph of the section  is the following:


 * In 1947 Arana had demanded that certain labor leaders be expelled from the country; Árbenz vocally disagreed with Arana, and the latter's intervention limited the number of deportees.

"The latter" in "the latter's intervention" seems to refer to Arana, but wasn't it Árbenz who intervened? If it was really Arana's intervention, shouldn't we make it a bit more explicit that Árbenz persuaded Arana to lighten up on his demands and intervene?
 * You're quite right, it was Arbenz who intervened.

2) In the middle of the paragraph that is the section Jacobo Árbenz is the following sentence:


 * Despite his position in Árbenz' government, however, Fortuny never became a popular figure in Guatemala, and did not have the sort of popular following that Gutierrez had.

I have searched through the article and cannot find any other mention of someone named "Gutierrez". This needs either the full name and/or a link to another article, or some sort of clarification.
 * This is what happens when you work on a number of closely related articles; you start mixing them up in your head :) Gutierrez was one of the other leftist leaders of the time, but he did not have such a close connection to Arbenz, and mentioning him is therefore not necessary: we can probably just say "did not have a large popular following."

3) In the middle of the last paragraph in Jacobo Árbenz is the following sentence:


 * Historian Piero Gleijeses has argued that although Árbenz' policies were intentionally capitalist in nature, his personal views gradually shifted towards communism.

Toward the end of the paragraph that is the section is the following sentence:


 * Árbenz himself slowly moved towards communism as a part of his personal ideology, but only joined the communist party in 1957, three years after his overthrow, after he had been further radicalized by the actions of the CIA.

I know these are in different sections, but do you really want to say this twice?
 * Given the widely held misconceptions about Arbenz' views/policies, I think being explicit even at the cost of some redundancy is worthwhile.

4) In the middle of the first paragraph in the section Jacobo Árbenz is the following sentence:


 * When they were finally allowed to leave the country, Jacobo Árbenz was publicly humiliated at the airport because the liberationist authorities made the former president strip before the cameras,[128] claiming that he was carrying jewelry he had bought for his wife, María Cristina Villanova, at Tiffany's in New York City, using funds from the presidency; no jewelry was found but the interrogation lasted for an hour.

It is not entirely clear who is meant by "the liberationist authorities". "Liberationist" is not really an English word. Perhaps this is a translation from a Spanish source. If not, I recommend either using a different word or phrase or explaining it. Also, this phrase (even if it were an English word) is highly ironic; it seems to suggest that the army officers backed by the CIA were "liberating" Guatemala.
 * That's probably where the term came from: I'm not sure why I included it! Just saying "authorities" is probably good enough there.

5) Toward the end of the paragraph in Jacobo Árbenz is the following sentence:


 * Árbenz himself once remarked that the "most precious fruit of the revolution and the fundamental base of the nation as a new country."

You will see that the sentence is ungrammatical. I wasn't sure how to fix it.
 * Goof on my part. Fixed it: Arbenz was talking about the agrarian reform, as you might expect.

6) In the third paragraph in the section Jacobo Árbenz is the following sentence:


 * Monzón informed Árbenz, who quickly sent another investigator, who brought back a message asking Árbenz to resign.

I searched for any other instance of the name "Monzón" in the article and could not find one. I think either the full name should be given and/or linked, or explained. Also, it is not clear whether this person is the same person mentioned two sentences earlier:


 * The leaders of the communist party also began to have their suspicions, and sent a member to investigate.
 * Yes, I can see that this is an issue. The confusion is understandable, as there was an Alvarado Monzon who was PGT Secretary General, and an Elfego Monzon who was a colonel in the army: both had minor roles in the events of that time. I've clarified it.

Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've responded point by point. I hope this addresses your concerns: thank you for a very detailed overview of the prose. Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful replies. I'll get to any changes that are needed a little later today. – Corinne (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad if you looked over it once again, but I took a shot at the issues you raised here: I had to check those things anyway, so it just seemed easier. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits all look good. – Corinne (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that in the first paragraph in the section Jacobo Árbenz you have the phrase "his friend Giordani". The name Giordani is mentioned only a few sentences later in the same paragraph. Can you find and add the complete name at the first mention? – Corinne (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point: fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

PSTS Group
Hi Vanamonde93,

We had earlier posted content on Wikipedia on the PSTS Group. We had seen an article published on TVS Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVS_Group. We wanted PSTS to get a recognition along similar lines. So we tried to publish an article on PSTS Group. This article was deleted under (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). We have reworked the article and deleted any marketing references in the same. The article is given below. Kindly advise whether we can publish the article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjulag (talk • contribs)
 * Hi there. I have removed the article you pasted here because this is not really the place (and it messed up the formatting) but don't worry, I took a look at it. There are still some matters of concern. First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Subjects don't have articles so that they can receive recognition: articles are created about a subject if it can be shown that the subject is notable. I am still unsure if your article meets our standard for notability. Second, and more importantly, from what you have said it sounds like you have a conflict of interest with respect to this subject. Please read the linked guideline carefully. If, after reading the various links I have posted here, you still believe that you can create an appropriate page, I would strongly suggest using the Articles for Creation process. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

GAN Operation PBFORTUNE
I was about to review the article, but the article needs a lot of touch up with the grammar and MOS, so I suggest you to place a request at WP:GOCE, before someone reviews the article. Subsequently, I nominated the review page I have created under CSD G7 because it is of no use (rationale provided) and for now because the guild has a severe backlog and it would take no less than a month, so I (or another reviewer) will do it after the ce is complete. I did the closing procedures per WP:GAN/I. The article also needs and infobox, try Infobox military operation. Vanamonde, please do not consider this as a fail, but something like just a procedural close. After the review page is deleted, kindly update the |page= parameter in GA nominee template to 1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure precisely what you are doing here. You are well within your rights to fail the nomination, but if you think the issues are solvable, surely putting it on hold would be more usual? Also, as somebody who copy edits for the GOCE, I'm fairly sure that the article is free of major grammar issueschool, and the GOCE is also not going to to address very specific MOS comments you may have. In any case, I now have no way of knowing what those issues are. Karellen93 (talk) ('s alternative account) 10:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All the stuff is now cleaned-up. From my part I sincerely advise a GOCE edit (they do comply with the MOS following their 5C policy), if you don't feel so, please, let us wait for another editor to take up the nomination. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding me: you seem to have specific issues with respect to MOS that you want fixed. Neither myself nor any potential copy-editor is psychic, and knows what those quibbles might be; which is why it would have been helpful for you to raise those on the review page and then putting the review on hold, rather than getting it speedied. That's all. (The other one's my alternative account, btw, no need to ping it). Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC))

Talk page messages
thank you. It just no need to remove it. It is a kind of ignoring messages. In arabic wikipedia it is not allowed to remove messages exept for archiving your talk page because no harm from let it and no benefit from removing it. Regards--مصعب (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * perhaps, but this is English Wikipedia, and our policies are different. You have already been asked to read WP:OWNTALK. You really need to drop the stick. Pursuing this further, with any messages to me or other users, is likely to be considered disruptive, and can be met with a block. This is the last I want to hear of the subject. Please find something else to do. Vanamonde (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ORCP
Hi, Vanamonde, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to start a new poll and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would do, except that I passed my RFA more than a month ago; and you were support number 29. I'd offer you a small fish of some sort, except that I have plenty of these moments too. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - my bad. That comes from working from an old list. Keep the fish, we breed our own and my wife sells them wet and fresh at the market. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, my friend, I know what you're trying to do and I appreciate it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Help needed with continued edit warring
Hi Vanamonde... on 10 October you issued a 24 hour block on User:BoBoMisiu for 3rr edit warring at Papal ban of Freemasonry (see User talk:BoBoMisiu). Unfortunately, as soon as his block expired, the editor continued to edit war to retain the same text (not surprising, given the comments he made in responce to having his unblock request rejected)

Here are the diffs for his continued edit warring, all made since your block. He seems unrepentant, so I think a longer block may be in order. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * diff 1,
 * diff 2, and
 * diff 3

Should I report this at ANI... or will you addressed it? Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't notice this for some reason, and then RL caught up with me. I'd rather not login to my main account right now (I'm on a phone) but I'll take a look soon as possible. If you want a response earlier than two hours from now, there's no harm in posting to ANEW. Regards, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, having taken a further look at this, I am not going to block at this point. Aside from the fact that Bobo's last edit was 24 hours ago, the frequency of reverts has also come down, and the other users (including yourself) are not blameless, either. Indeed, I am tempted to full-protect the page, and will do so if the dispute gets any worse. You folks are clearly able to have a moderately productive talk page discussion: why must you accompany it with continual reverts on the article? Vanamonde (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi
I just wanted to notify you about the fact that user Surtsicna continues to edit war at different royalties articles such as Princess Madeleine. Also being combative with me at his talk page. Ignoring any attempt to discuss the edit wars situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was offline, my apologies. I will take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My main reason for contacting you is that Surtsicna refuses to discuss any matter at the talk pages of the articles he edits. But he sure has got the energy to report that other user for simply wanting him to discuss. It is a pattern that goes way back sadly. Just like now. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a look. While there is certainly sub-par behavior going on, a lot of it was before my warning to them at ANEW. In my view, this means that a second warning is pointless, and a block is not yet justified. Furthermore, the behavior of the "other side" has not been ideal either: there are several talk pages without any discussion whatsoever. So for now, I am not going to take any action: if the disruption gets worse, please report them back to ANEW, and in the meantime please make a sustained effort to discuss this issue. Vanamonde (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make it clear that I am not part of the discussion. But neither parties that are supposed to discuss it have both removed my plea for them to do so at their respective talk pages. And no discussion has been initiated at the Princess talk page either. I guess or are inclined to believe that the edit war will continue once the article is unprotected. Hopefully they have both learned something. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * No problem, and thank you very much! Vanamonde (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi
I am sorry for contacting you again so soon. But could you take a look at this comment and several more from user Nableezy. I think that kind of language at an AfD is quite over the top. I mean no one else in the discussion uses swear words or insult like that. I might be overreacting but I rather contact you and let you just take a look at it than just let it pass. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, . Here he even removes a comment from another user .--BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather busy in RL: might be a few hours before I can take a detailed look. Vanamonde (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Word for World Is Forest
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

article refund request for Gerald Gurian
Hi, could you please Userfy the deleted Gerald Gurian article to my Userspace (including its full edit history)?

Background: I participated in, and you were the closer of, Articles for deletion/Gerald Gurian. I agree there was clear consensus that Gerald Gurian is not Wikipedia-notable if more sources are not found. However I would like access to try to use its material to add something to one or more of the many Star Trek-related list-articles. And it may turn out that "Gerald Gurian" would usefully be a redirect to an item there, and if a redirect is going to exist, I would want it to include its edit history, so if GG does become more clearly notable, it can be restored properly as an article. I want to work with the material, and have access to see who added what, anyhow.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, do  ncr  am  22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * sure, here you go: User:Doncram/Gerald_Gurian. You're probably well aware that the article should be substantially improved, particularly vis-a-vis GNG, before it's moved back to mainspace. Knock yourself out! Vanamonde (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Righto. Thanks! -- do  ncr  am  04:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Aldana Sandoval
— Chris Woodrich (talk)) 00:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Gerda! Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection of University
Hello. You wrote on RfPP that you protected the article for three months, but judging by the protection log it seems like you forgot to protect it... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah my internet seems to be a bit dodgy, I think the edit did not save. I've fixed it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thks. University, List of oldest universities in continuous operation, University of Bologna and a couple more are repeatedly being hit by a small group of people who insist that all higher learning originated in the Muslim world, and that al-Qarawiyyin, a madrasa founded in the 9th century is the oldest university in the world, absolutely refusing to accept that madrasas weren't, aren't and never have been universities by the mainstream definition of (mediaeval) universities, and that there were many schools for higher/advanced learning long before Islam even existed. So protection really is needed... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already protected the list: I don't think protection is justified on the Bologna page just yet. Vanamonde (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because it already is protected ;)
 * The previous protection expired on 10 May this year, and the disruptive edits started again the next day, which led to it being protected for a year, i.e. until 11 May 2017 (if you look at the protection log you'll find that University of Bologna has been semi-protected almost without interruption for more than a year now, and currently is protected for another five months). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Templates
Why have you templated my user talk without templating my user page? "Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail."Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that that wording is applicable to site bans, not topic bans; in any case, it is not being enforced elsewhere that I know of (fellow admins, please correct me if I'm wrong). That apart, I hardly think you want a badge of shame on your userpage, which leads me to believe that this post is just poking the bear. If you wish to actually appeal the sanction, go ahead, though I would not expect that to be successful. Otherwise, please leave it be, and go make useful contributions elsewhere. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my purpose here is to probe the meaning of the rule so that I can follow the damn thing. I want to delete the template from my talk page, and not be site-banned in the process, and so I want to know what the rule means (because I realize that the text of a rule means nothing at Wikipedia compared to what a bunch of admins say it means).  So you can take the WP:ABF and put it in the same place as your command that I "go make useful contributions elsewhere".  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the template, since you say the rule is applicable only to site bans.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had truly been interested in the whether you could remove the template, a simple question would have sufficed. Even in your reply, you feel the need to take an entirely unnecessary swipe at the process that sanctioned you. Hence my suggestion that you find better things to do. I trust that this is the last I have to hear of this, short of an actual appeal. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A simple question would have revealed my goal, which would therefore have been more likely to be thwarted. Plus I believe in following Wikipedia's rules, and if the rules really require a template at my user page, then one should go there.  I don't merely support following rules that work in my favor, your opinion notwithstanding.  Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have started an appeal here. Please advise if I have to do anything else, such as provide notifications. May I place a notification at the talk page of the Donald Trump article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would strongly recommend not placing such a notification. It is likely to be seen as canvassing (even if the intent is otherwise), we are discussing an issue that is fundamentally about behaviour, and a notification is likely to bring both sides of the Trump dispute out in force, creating a lot of heat but little light. Finally, the topic ban allows an exception for appeals, but not for discussion elsewhere; a notice could easily be seen as a tban violation. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 09:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Commenting with one account, copy editing with another
Re, I slept on it and it still bugs me. Why not use the same account for both edits? We're expected to investigate possible alt-accounts first? Sheesh. Cheers,&#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the signature itself acknowledges the alternative account, so I don't think I'm hiding anything...the reason why is pretty simple. I do most of my editing with my main account on my computer. My alt account is the one I use on my phone, because I don't want the admin buttons there; too much potential for accident, not secure enough, etc. But if I don't have access to my computer, I try to monitor things with my phone. And yesterday while doing so I felt I should make my meaning clearer. Does that answer your question? Cheers, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the issue now; I left my original sig on the post yesterday! I could perhaps have avoided some confusion by signing again, I suppose. Cheers, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That, plus some indication of alt account in the editsum, would help greatly. I realize it's easy to assume that everybody already knows, in the places you hang out. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How to warn an IP?
Thanks for your reply on the Vandalism page. I have a question, how do I properly warn someone that edits using just an IP address? Normally I would go to a User's talk page, but I can't do that now. I am fairly new to this. Amin (Talk) 07:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. IPs can be warned just like any other user accounts. In your case, Special:Contributions/37.76.85.1, as you can see, does have a talk page (though red-linked, since no one has posted anything so far). For general warning of editors, the semi-automatic tool WP:TWINKLE is highly recommended; note that it can do a lot of other tedious tasks too quickly. Let me know if you have any issues, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Amin (Talk) 08:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: .. the IP user has continued the malicious edits, and I have updated the Vandalism page. I hope someone can weigh in on this, or better yet, block the user from from editing the page in question. Amin (Talk) 09:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FC CSKA 1948 Sofia
Hello, I know you don't take sides in content disputes, but please can you revert the page to this verison from before the content dispute please? I am asking for this beacause the current one, if you review it closely, is full of POV's that sould not be there at all, the user keeps re-adding them constantly. Discussion has started on the talk page and the user [has been reported], but the current verison is just not acceptable per WP:POV. Thank you in advanse!--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. As you said, I do not take sides in a content dispute. The exception might be if the protection had left blatant vandalism, or BLP violations, in the article. So far as I can see, it has not. What you need to do is establish consensus for one version on the talk page. I'm not saying the current version is fine; but a POV dispute over the score of a single match between fans of two football teams is not near serious enough for me to dive in and take a side. Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
I have seen this. I am not LanguageXpert. If you doubt I am ready to abuse badly to LanguageXpert. Whatever abuse you ask me to. Even If you say me to not edit. Next time I will not edit. OK ? But I just wanted to tell you all that Punjabi dialects articles were introduced to Wikipedia by a user Khalid Mehmood back in 2008-2011. He was an honourable wikipedian who was invited to Wikimania12 in Washgton DC and Wikimania14 in London. He just died. LanguageXpert came in to picture in Nov 2012. He is not a owner of Punjabi dialects. Internet is full with people who mention Punjabi dialects. Are all those socks of LanguageXpert ? Linguists from Grierson to Cardona mention Punjabi dialects. Are they all sock of LanguageXpert? Ironically Khalid Mehmood was also probed as Language Xpert. Even and  were probed as LanguageXpert because they favour Punjabi dialects. I saw about 25 IPs starting from 39.32.... Or 39.47.... were also SPIed as LanguageXpert. My series was never 39.47/ 39.32. Those IPs are specific to Islamabad city. While IP series 39..... represents all north Pakistan. My point is that if some one speaks Pakistani English edits Punjabi dialects then is he sock of LanguageXpert ? No No No. It is wrong perception. Another question LanguageXpert was blocked for 3Rs volitions. Then why not User Uanfala for same violation on Saraiki dialect page? He deserve even more severe punishment when he Forumshops and after failed of talk page discussions / Move requests / Move reviews / Mediation requests / Dispute resolutions starts editing tendentiously and edit wars. He had difference of opinion with many users but he kept on edit wars. If LanguageXpert was blocked in 2012 then why not User Uanfala ? Next time I will not edit. OK ? I am ₯€₠€₯ not F...Xpert.
 * One more thing there can be an error in you Sock investigation because the 15 last blocked users never edited any language page then how can they be LanguageXpert ? Last LanguageXpert sock may be User:Raniishaa last edit July 2016.
 * Honestly, I'm not interested. Multiple editors that I trust, who are more familiar with the situation, have said that you are LanguageExpert: but even if you aren't, it doesn't really matter, because you were not really editing in a policy-based manner in any case. You need to go take a long hard look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, and especially at WP:RS, and thoroughly understand those before attempting anything else. I don't want to hear more about the dreary history of this dispute. Vanamonde (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Asian Women Month
Hi there! As you may know, this November is Asian Women Month, hosted by Wikipedia Asian Month and WikiWomen In Red. Our goal is to encourage coverage of Asian women in order to help overcome the Asian content gender gap. Asian Women Month observes the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month. You will receive a special Asian Women Month barnstar if you create four articles in accordance with the rules for the event, as well as a postcard sent from an Asian community! Thanks for your consideration. Read more here! - Rimmel . Edits Talk 02:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!
Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event: Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
 * 2) Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
 * 3) Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
 * 4) If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
 * 5) Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions.
 * 6) If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I've filled the form. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)