User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 16

IPv6 sockpuppet
I saw that you blocked 2602:306:b852:1360::/64 for 7 days. I think this is rather short as this /64 was blocked at the end of November for three months. It is now three months later and they immediately started the same pattern of date changing across a wide range of movie/TV actor biographies. Compare in March and  in November. I'm surprised at the mismatch between the three month block and the seven day block, given that the editor immediately resumed the same pattern of abuse.

I'm also surprised that this is a sockpuppet investigation, given that residential IPv6 addresses tend to be handed out as a /64 and temporary IPv6 addresses within the /64 are a perfectly normal way for the OS to behave. I don't think the vandal is deliberately changing their IPv6 address, but the address change does make it harder for non-admins to see patterns of abuse across the /64.

It also looks like not all the changes made by this user were rolled back - I've reverted their edits to Karen Allen, Kay Bennett, Simone Russell, Barbara Stock, Teri Austin, Maureen McCormick, Linda Kozlowski, Suzzanne Douglas, Judith Hoag, Holly Robinson Peete, Jason Priestley, Fiona Lewis, Sam Robards, Rhonda Shear, and Linda Fiorentino. Is there a good way to search for changes made by a /64? - Ttwaring (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. I extended the block to 6 months. For IPv6 range contributions, you have to go to your "preferences", then select "Gadgets" table, then enable "Splark". Then, go to Special:Contributions and type, for example, "2602:306:B852:1360:*" (asterisk is a joker sign. For some reason, letters must be in uppercase) in the "User" field. That should work.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thank you very much! Ttwaring (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin Testament Project Revisit
Our page on The Latin Testament Project was deleted in September 2016. You suspended me from responding to the request for further sources before I had the opportunity to answer. Please consider the information below, and please reconsider the deletion of the Latin Testament Project page.

General Information www.Searchlight-Press.com www.JohnCunyus.com

Scholarly Interaction with Latin Testament Project 1. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Roczniki Humanistyczne 2013 | 61 | 5: Neofilologia | 7-27 English Equivalents of dicere in Prose Translations of Jerome’s Psalters Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-dafedf7b-e22c-4bda-81e0-13ac5677a9bd

2. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Adeptus 2016 | 7 | 84-101 The soul in the mediaeval Psalter Lis Kinga http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-101150b3-9461-4778-b43a-21f4e3c66419

3. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Roczniki Humanistyczne 2013 | 61 | 5: Neofilologia | 27-45 Principles of Equivalent Selection in English Prose Translations of Jerome’s Psalters: A Study Based on exaudire and videre Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik ,	Jerzy Wójcik http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-258b203d-3635-4357-aa2b-9287c55e6445

4. Linguistics Beyond And Within 1 (2015), 152-168 "Is there a method in this… madness? On variance between two manuscript copies of a Middle English Psalter" Kinga Lis John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland http://lingbaw.com/2015/Kinga-Lis.pdf

5. "Young Minds. Old Questions in Linguistics" Proceedings of the Fourth Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students Edited by Anna Bondaruk; Anna Bloch-Rozmej; Wojciech Malec; Ewelina Mokrosz; Sławomir Zdziebko http://cecils.webclass.co/proceedings/CECILS4.pdf

6. Language Change: Faces and Facets Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik http://www.academia.edu/27645492/Language_Change_Faces_and_Facets

Reviews by American Academics 1. Review by Dr. Rob Plummer, Professor of New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.robplummer.com/2013/03/a-latin-english-verse-by-verse-translation/

2. "Does God Have Faith?" By Joe McIntyre Hope, Faith, Prayer https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/faith/does-god-have-faith-mcintyre/

3. AN AMATEUR'S HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY "The Offering" Tuesday, August 6, 2013 http://awaisaftab.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-offering.html

4. WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation http://www.theses.xlibx.info/t1-other1/1315275-1-the-song-solomon-john-cunyus-translator-scripture-from-the-latin.php

Articles in US and European Newspapers 1. "Cunyus shares latest translation at Rotary" Monday, March 6, 2017 6:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/cunyus-shares-latest-translation-at-rotary/article_59a37dda-02bf-11e7-9225-2bbf752a7310.html

2. "A way with words" Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/a-way-with-words/article_603866a8-bca4-11e6-b103-97239118122f.html

3. "Rotarian, First Christian pastor talks world religions, Islam" Friday, January 8, 2016 3:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/rotarian-first-christian-pastor-talks-world-religions-islam/article_94f9147a-b62c-11e5-bead-2f348f422075.html

4. "Henderson pastor explains the importance of Bible translation" Friday, May 22, 2015 5:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/henderson-pastor-explains-the-importance-of-bible-translation/article_2dd42a8c-00a1-11e5-8c64-170c1db458ae.html

5. "Jesus botade sjuka med cannabis" NYHETER 07 jan 2003 Aftonbladet, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article10333332.ab

6. "Antike Hippies" Von Urs Willmann Zeit Online Seine medizinischen Wunder vollbrachte Jesus mit köstlichen Drogen http://www.zeit.de/2003/03/geniessen_1301

Online Bible Listings 1. Wikidot http://bibles.wikidot.com/cunyus

2. WorldCat https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=John+Cunyus&dblist=638&fq=dt%3Abks+%3E+ap%3A%22cunyus%2C+john%22&qt=facet_ap%3A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgc searchlight (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no connection to the deletion of that article. It was deleted, who closed the discussion. If you think the consensus was wrongly assessed, you may use the WP:deletion review. I blocked you for organizing wp:meatpuppets to defend the article.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr John CD is now deceased, and the protocol on deletion review is opaque, at best. Thanks for your quick response. Jgc searchlight (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation
Hi. You recently helped me with this SPI. I've had to re-open it, as the user is back. I'd appreciate your help/comments with this one. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again. On this case you extended the block on the IP range for a couple of weeks. This has now expired, and they're back again (details at the foot of that section). I'd appreciate if you could extend the block, maybe for 1 month, if possible? Many thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I extended the block to one moth.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Nate Leipciger; however, I have unreviewed it. The article was full of copyvio. Please remember to check all articles for copyright violations. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at the evidence I provided at Sockpuppet investigations/CarolinaPete, I understand why you said there was no evidence provided directly against SouthDakotaJosephSmith. Is it possible for me to amend the report with such evidence to reopen the case. Is so, can I also remove the IPs and/or just request a CU on SouthDakotaJosephSmith? --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add comments to the (closed) case, but do not change the status of the case. If the case gets archived before you comment, fell free to open new investigation (on the same page), but do not edit the archive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Preletačević
Hi! I have nominated the articles for DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Ljubiša Preletačević), but Sarmu probo nisi is a few characters short of the required length. Can it be expanded some more? Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did_you_know is clear that suck a DYK hook should be avoided. I see no point in pushing this issue further.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi Vanjagenije, I have a question and a request regarding hard-block on here, would you please take a look? Bests,46.221.204.47 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

, you said that "There are only 4 edits on the whole month" regarding the ip range. Could you please check those 4 edits, please? Because if those 4 edits were also target the same ethnicity with the same agenda, then it means that the disruption is continues. 46.221.178.25 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Three are to the Mark Gottfried article, one to Accenture article .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Vanja. They seems irrevelant. Maybe the best thing to do is contacting Beeblebrox, who reduce Hassan Rebell's block. I will do it, when have a time. Bests, 46.221.178.25 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * * As you see, unblocking his sock accounts (i mean "hard-blocking") is just "encouraging" this vandal. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read this.. It is like a vicious cycle. So hard-block for his accounts and semi-protection for certain pages that I have mentioned on Drmies's talk page are the only solutions to stop this "old" vandal. I don't think that you all "helpless" regarding this problem. You just do not care, sorry. 46.221.168.189 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing you do not want to understand is that, this vandal Hassan Rebell was blocked indefinitely per "not here to build encylopedia", since the admin who blocked him thought that he has a biased, politically motivated agenda. Beeblobrox gave him a chance by reducing his block but he continues exactly the same WP:NOTHERE behaviour via plenty of IPS, proxies, accounts etc. as i proved with dozens of the diffs on the SPI. And you are also agreed that those IPS belong to the same editor. I mean, the same WP:NOTHERE behavior that led to indef block has been continuing. So the account should be blocked again. Is this really so hard to understand? And his two accounts were banned for impersonating others. Is it just a "coincidence" ? No it is a tactic of that long-term vandal. So, since it is not a "mistake" or "coincidence", but a tactic, those accounts shouldn't be simply "soft-blocked". Again, is this so hard to understand? I really cannot believe your(and other careless admins') attitude. 46.221.214.252 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just go and read the SPI case again and compare this "new" edit with the diffs regarding edits/comments of French proxy sock and Hassan Rebell. I don't know how many diffs and proves do you need but there are plenty of diffs! I have done my best to prove this ongoing vandalism, socking, evading strategies and hate propagating campaign and I suggested two simple solutions to stop it. And if you still think that there is not much thing to do, i don't have anything else to say anymore. 46.221.214.252 (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's go point by point:
 * I don't know what you mean by unblocking his sock accounts? What account were unblocked?
 * I don't know what you think hard blocking means. Hard block means block with WP:autoblock enabled (see WP:HARDBLOCK). But, this user changes IP address so often that autoblock wouldn't have any effect.
 * Semi-protection is a thing we use when there is serious disruption to pages. If a page is semi-protected, thousands of anonymous editors are prevented from editing it. This is only done if there is ongoing disruption that cannot be stopped otherwise (by reverting or IP blocking). You failed to provide any such example of a page that suffers ongoing disruption that cannot be stopped with other means.
 * is not currently blocked, as he was unblocked by, who gave him a last chance. If you think the account should be re-blocked, please contact and explain the situation.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By "hard-block", i mean hard-blocking Lrednuas Senoroc. 'Cause you said on SPI that, he is only soft-blocked. Accounts might be blocked for violating multiple policies, am i wrong? I see many accounts and even proxies that were blocked for multiple reasons. I think the soft-block is for accounts whose usernames are very similar to an another editor's by a "mistake ". But this vandal was blocked for the same reason 2 times. Is it a coincidence or does he " intentionally" impersonate other editors? Obviously he intentionally chooses those usernames as a sock trick and it is disruptive, isn't it? Moreover, i provided clear evidences to show that the account is WP:DUCK of Hassan Rebell/Lrednuas Senoroc. Socking is also disruptive, isnt it? (Mind that, he didn't provided any info on his userpage regarding his ties with Hassan Rebell. He did behave as if he was a different editor). So i really cannot understand why this single-purposed, impersonator and sockmaster is still only soft-blocked which means he is allowed to edit? 46.221.222.1 (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is allowed to edit disruptively. The purpose of blocks is to prevent disruptive editing. As long as disruption is stopped, there is no reason to change blocks.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So by "disruptive editing", you mean anon socks? Because it is "technically" imposible to continue disruptive edits via the banned impersonator sock account(s). 46.221.215.203 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean any kind of disruptive editing, including anonymous editing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably a sock
The account was created in 2008. Only one minor edit within 9 years. On 24 February 2017, abrubtly edited Banaz Mahmod and added YouTube links. (Typical behaviour of ip socks of LS, see Kurdish women for example) The article is not popular on WP and mostly created by 81.62.24.156, the confirmed ip sock of Hassan Rebell/Lrednuas Senoroc. The account seems sleeper sock of this sockmaster. Probably preffered to use his sleeper, since his IPS are exposed on the SPI. Could you please compare the account with the current ip socks of LS and his other accounts? 46.221.220.59 (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately, technical data is kept for 90 days, so it is technically impossible to compare this account to or . Also, Wikipedia's privacy policy prevents WP:Checkusers from publicly connecting account with their IP(s). We can only analyse behavior, but for that you have to provide stronger evidence. I recommend opening WP:SPI and presenting evidence.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  14:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have opened1. But i do not want to wait for 1-2 months again to get a feedback from a checkuser. It would be nice, if you take a look, since you are familiar with the case. Bests, 46.221.167.58 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sock?
see this. I was checking the page, since i am expecting a reply from the editor. Interestingly, 5 days later i informed the anon regarding the sockmaster, a dubious account edited the dynamic ip's talk page and made some "recommendations" to an another banned sock who has the similar agenda with him. I think, the account may belong the sockmaster Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. 46.221.222.253 (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not the right place to conduct sockpuppet investigations. We have WP:SPI for that purpose.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. If i find more concrete evidences, i'll open a new case. I am not sure whether this suspicious account belong to sockmaster Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell or not. But it is obvious that the account is a sock of someone. "Uydurmahesap" means "fake account"-dubious username, dubious edits. 46.221.190.170 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The account is blocked. 46.221.201.74 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Administraticve subdivisions of Serbia
Hi Vanjagenije, I have noticed your now-removed topic on the article's talk page, where you mentioned me. I suppose that you have already understood why have I made such an edit.

Please, make a difference between the statistical regions (NUTS statistical regions of Serbia) and legislative regions (first level administraticve subdivisions - districts and second level administrative subdivisions - municipalities).

The example is Bulgaria (it also has NUTS statistical regions, and they are, unlike in Serbia, fully in power -, as per Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics and , as Serbia has not yet agreed on statistical regions for the country with Eurostat) and its administrative subdivision: provinces being the first level and municipalities being the second level.

Bye!-- AirWolf  talk  15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Aiding POV pushers
I put this on top to be less visible.

Regarding recent edits on |this page. I must ask you. Don't you think that you are aiding POV pushers? You are familiar with the previous RfC on Novak Djokovic's page. Two editors who were strongly against introducing an edit about Novak's mother being a Croat are now introducing an edit about Stulic's father being a Serb.

On Djokovic's page, 23 editor opposed by saying that genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant: "his parents are both Serbian (one born in N. Kosovo and the other in Belgrade). The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant." FkpCascais also opposed due to not being notable. Later he also lied about the contents of the source.

Now we have them both consider this information notable on less credible sources. On Djokovic's page we had Novak's interview and here we have an article claiming in Trump's fashion "everybody knows he is a Serb".

Not only that, but as they managed to insert their view in the article they are refusing to discuss. Well, I know it's a bit early to say that they are refusing to discuss, but I'm well familiar with those POV pushers.

After all what happened on Djokovic's page we have FkpCascais saying "we have a source, what's there to discuss". Yeah, we had pretty strong sources on Djokovic's page, yet it took about 15 editors to introduce those sources.

I'm sorry, but I think that your actions just aid their obvious POV pushing. This surly can't end up without a RfC. It's simply not possible to discuss with those people. 89.164.186.8 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I aiding POV pushers?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * By protecting the page only for ips instead of everyone. 89.164.186.8 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be the difference? Page protection is used to prevent disruption (WP:edit warring in this case). This level of protection prevents edit warring, so it's appropriate.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. It seems a RfC is the only solution here. I'll give it a go with the discussion first, but from my past experiences, that's a waste of time. They have already gone 180 from their previous stand. 89.164.186.8 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * From my past experiences, discussion is never a waste of time.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, I didn't opposed that the sourced information about Djokovic's mother being a Croat was to be introduced in the article, I opposed the IPs wish to add itin the lede. Big difference. FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You were opposed . You downplayed the source, although you knew how credible the source is . You personally attacked an IP . Vanjagenije also removed some personal attacks you made. So what was up with all that fuss? And now you are making |this statement? How can you ever explain this? Just looking you trying to get out of the hole you dig for yourself with such shallow arguments makes my day. Playing the amnesia card is just hilarious. I've put some diffs to brush your memory. 89.164.186.8 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanjagenije, I hope you see why a RfC would be needed here. I can't with clear mind allow this two editors make such an edit by themselves and by blocking 2 ips. Other editors must be included. Luckily those two editors made 15 other editors waste time for weeks with a very similar RfC, so there are plenty of editors that have experience to share their opinion here. 89.164.186.8 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So I invited them to discuss. As I said what will happen, they are ignoring the discussion. Not a surprising development since their POV pushing attitude is well known. They have successfully pushed their view to the article despite their previous strong opposition to introducing parent's ethnicity to the article. You blocked me and the other ip signaling them that they are completely right. Do you now admit that you have aided POV pushers? The most troublesome thought is that you have done this on purpose. You have participated in Novak Djokovic's RfC and you know that they have completely opposite stand there. Quite strong stand. FkpCascais even lied about the contents of the source. This shows their complete lack of editing in good faith. I don't know how did you read that behavior to end up aiding them push an edit into this article without a consensus. I'll still wait a little longer for them to join the discussion so to hear from them the 180 swift in their stand. I have some serious question to ask them. I don't expect anything from you, but you should at least admit your mistake. Also, when, and familiar with those two, it's only the question of when personal attacks start, I hope you will step up. I just intend to bring this matter to editors involved in Novak Djokovic's RfC. Also I'm considering to make a report if they don't show up to the opened discussion. 213.202.111.233 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pointing this discussion to you, since I've mentioned you there. 141.136.215.216 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems that the discussion went unnoticed. I'll edit the article as soon as protection expires. If they revert me without participating in the discussion, I'll make another report. If that goes unnoticed, I'm forced to bother all the editors who participated in Novak Djokovic's RfC. 141.136.246.50 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/Singer Jethu Sisodiya
You are invited to join the discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/Singer Jethu Sisodiya. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 11:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Genije,
Šta nije referentno u Turbetu?!*http://www.glaskotorvarosa.com/:Glas Kotor-Varoša Yahadzija (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

new sockpuppet
Hi I believe there is a new sockpuppet in the following case Sockpuppet_investigations/Jamesday57/Archive User:DAYBOY he has been carrying the same edits as the others here Domdeparis (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open new investigation as described at WP:SPI ("How to open an investigation").  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I'll see if he continues, BTW I have no idea why there is this weird font...not my doing...i hope!!!--Domdeparis (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it!!! Domdeparis (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Kes Tokyo (musician)
Hi Vanja, i want to ask you if it is ok to create an article about Kes Tokyo? Because i was about to do that, but i noticed that the article has be recent removed from encyclopedia. Fenywoods96 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC) OK, I'm going to find as much sources as I can, before considering creating the page. thank you Fenywoods96 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is ok if:
 * you are able to prove (using references to wp:reliable sources) that the person is WP:notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * you are not a wp:sockpuppet of who already tried to create the page several times under different titles (Kes Tokyo, Kes TokYo, Kes Tokyo (rapper), Kes Tokyo (musician)).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  14:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Class issue
Greetings. I am a professor in charge of a class on the CIA, HIST 480 being taught at Northern Illinois University. We have permission from wiki education to update the pages on CIA activities in various parts of the world. There are about 40 students and some of them are being blocked for mistaken cases of "sockpuppeting". I am happy to share my syllabus with and and put you in touch with the folks I have been talking to at wikipedia. You can email me at eajones@niu.edu. I am happy to discuss further so that we can better coordinate. Best, Prof Eric Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonmint321 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi! I removed your postscript that was copy-pasted from Sockpuppet investigations/Z1747449. Your students were blocked by User:Bbb23 who is a WP:Checkuser. I haveno authority to unblock accounts blocked by a checkuser. You should contact Bbb23 and discuss it with him. By the way, can you point us out to your course page (Special:Courses)?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with understanding sockpuppet reports/archiving
Hello Vanjagenije, I've seen you archiving at Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJ_KUMAR_MISHRA/Archive. What is the best place to report new Rajkumar Mishra socks so they will be blocked and noted/archived? I'm thinking of this one for now, but there will be more: User:Rajkumar Maksudan Maishra. His spamming also includes a few photos of himself that he is adding to various articles of other actors:, , , ,. Thanks for any advice! First Light (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:SPI and follow the steps written in the box titled "How to open an investigation". Don't edit the archive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lessons about Wikipedia and littering
Good afternoon Vanjagenije. I am learning the lesson not to make incorrect paragraphs to every articles. Which ones should I have to rectify first? Should I create my own article that features each characters' illegal use of balloons? Rectify 54 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

Last week, it's my fault for making incorrect summary for the Naruto anime episodes without permission. Lord Sjones23 prevented me from doing so and you blocked me from editing articles. I am sorry. Does incorrect edits upset you? Rectify 54 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Today, we are currently cleaning the world from litter since March 2017. Because it is illegal to leave the objects unattended on the ground, we are gathering the waste, in order to keep our planet clean and Earth is currently sustainable. Rectify 54 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, do not remove my comments from my talk page as you did . I blocked you for WP:sockpuppetry, that has nothing to do with Naruto.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  05:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

SPI
As you took an interest in Sockpuppet_investigations/Novonium/Archive you might be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Novonium. Pam D  07:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
Please do not get offended but I am currently pursuing my Master and Doctoral Degrees in Theology.

Accordingly, the Catholic and Christian Orthodox faith were united as one until the great schism.

My recent edit was only meet to draw distinction between the Catholic and Christian Orthodox churches.

I pray that one day these two Christian Churches can set aside their differences and be reunited once again.

In the true spirit of humanity we need dialogue first before summarily dismissing ones opinion.

Take the utmost care, Giorgos Trifon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Trifon (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not offended at all. You should understand that Wikipedia is governed by wp:consensus. One of the official names of the Orthodox Church is "Orthodox Catholic Church" which is attested in many reliable sources and is used by the church itself (see also: Talk:Eastern_Orthodox_Church/Archive_12). The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed used by the Orthodox Church defines the church as "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" (see Four Marks of the Church). You changed that without discussion and contrary to consensus, so I reverted your edit. That's all.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/AkoAyMayLobo
There's some discussion of your merge of this SPI to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101 in the latest thread. I'm not familiar with teh AkoAyMayLobo case so I have no comment. Meters (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lithuania
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lithuania. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

New IPhonehurricane95 sock family
Hi, Vanjagenije. I asked a couple of other admins to fix a potential issue involving the confusion of two sock families (probably) run by the same user. Since they were unable to act on this at the time (due to varying reasons), I thought that I should come to you about this. Here is a chunk of the message I sent them, with the some evidence I gathered up to back the actions I'm suggesting.

"Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that there was this new SPI investigations log revolving around User:UnderArmourKid, who was a known sockpuppet of User:IPhonehurricane95 (the account was not tagged back in July 2014, due to WP:DENY). His contributions and "unblock request" edits pretty much give it away. However, I think that the new SPI case page could be distracting from the true sockmaster in a potentially detrimental way, so the UnderArmourKid SPI should probably be merged into the IPhonehurricane95 SPI case page, given the fact that the sockmaster was active as recently as only 2 weeks ago.

Concerning the evidence, in the UnderArmourKid SPI archives, the 19 July 2016'' case saw a Checkuser link 5 of the accounts named to IPhonehurricane95 (all 5 were confirmed socks of the same user, and at least one of them openly admitted to being IPhonehurricane95 ). That being said, at least 4 of those same accounts were also apparently linked to UnderArmourKid, an older, known IPh95 sock. The latest sock, User:Bausha Vortex, openly admitted to being UnderArmourKid. M&M Kid also appears to be another IPh95 sock. Lastly, these edits pretty much tie the IPhonehurricane95 sock family to the UnderArmourKid socks:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Earth100&diff=prev&oldid=632819886] (the last edit provided here was performed by a confirmed IPh95 sock, which also links several of the different socks together). Also, a number of those socks expressed interest in the talk page of UA rocks!, another IPh95 sock, and they also liked to frequent User talk:Earth100 (Earth100 has been a frequent target for harassment by IPhonehurricane95 in the past). Some examples of how their disturbing "unblock requests" match up are right here: .''

''That being said, the sock tags on the accounts listed under UnderArmorKid should be corrected to IPhonehurricane95 tags, and UnderArmourKid should also be tagged as a sock of IPh95. Given the evidence presented above, can you please merge Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid and its Archive into the pages for Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95? If you still have any doubts, you can run a Check on any of the accounts I mentioned, or found in the UnderArmourKid SPI archives. I think that it would be a lot more beneficial if all of the accounts were listed together under the correct sockmaster. Thank you." LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)''

Can you please help fix this mess? I think that it would do admins and regular users alike a great deal of favor if this confusion is finally put to an end. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can some of the Checkusers look into the logs and find out if Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid and Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95 are the same?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a non-stale confirmed sock of IPhone? Without that, I don't see how CUs can help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I was thinking about CU logs. Many checks were performed on both.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the CU logs in the IPhone archive, the locations are not even close.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. So... is User:UnderArmourKid an entirely different sockmaster? I have seen interactions between some IPhonehurricane95 and UnderArmorKid accounts, which makes it look kind of suspicious. (BTW, since 5 of the accounts I mentioned above have been CU-linked to IPh95, maybe a copy of that 19 July 2016 log should be added to IPhonehurricane95's SPI archives by an admin? They were all Cu-linked to each other, and at least one of those 5 accounts said he was IPhonehurricane95.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the two of them really are separate sockmasters (and I have seen some evidence to support that notion), then I find it highly alarming that UnderArmourKid is emulating some of the same disruptive behaviors that we have seen from IPh95 in the past. Even a number of his "unblock requests" are eerily similar. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Valoem/Sol Forman
Please restore it, WP:NODEADLINE I'll work on it when I get a chance. Valoem  talk   contrib  08:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Neville Sigauke question
Does Neville Sigauke go back to AfD, now that it was restored after a soft deletion? JMHamo (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to nominate it for AfD.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sock editors
Vanjagenije, is there a way to note IPs that have been ruled at be edits of a blocked editor? There is a back story here related to HughD. Thanks Springee (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They are tagged, and so are automatically listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HughD. I think that's enough.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about that list. Springee (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Lrednuas Senoroc
Same ISP, same geolocation, same articles/targets, same manner, same agenda. The ip belongs to the same notorious sockmaster and impersonator.

Info regarding Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell/Heysem/Kintetsuboffalo's ip socks based on previous cases:
 * Geolocation: Mainly North Rhine Westphalia, Germany
 * ISP: Unitymedia(probably home isp), Deutsche Telecom

So, the anon is technically and behaviorally the same sockpuppeteer. You said that you are going to block the sockmaster, if he back with the same agenda. He does not target the same minority group SALIENTLY, in order not to be noticed. However, all info(at least 2 of them are spams) he mentioned on talk page is obviously fit with LS's agenda against the same group-trying to demonstrate how widespread the practice is(among the same ethnicity)- There are many diffs from his previous ip socks regarding it. Since it is not about the content but the WP:AGENDA, WP:SCRUTINY, WP:TE, WP:SOCKING etc., i will wrap it out. What i am trying to say is that the same agenda/disruption continues through ip socks of the same impersonator sockmaster. (I cannot understand how this long-term abuser is still unblocked, even though he violated the wikipedia policies as if its breakfast.) 176.126.68.73 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot use my own ip now, since WP is blocked in my country. I hope you remember the previous discussions. 176.126.68.73 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed the sockmaster's another edit via his another ip sock and it made me think that Heysem was also his sock account, as PanchoS said before. Please compare their edits. (The ip's both geolocation and ISP are the same with Lrednuas Senoroc's. )

Also, Hassan Rebell did not reject of being Heysem in his talk page while he strictly rejected the accusations regarding the ip 86.165.11.32. It seems that user PanchoS was also right, Heysem was also sock of the same disruptive user evading block(Heysem started to edit WP when Rebell was blocked). 176.126.68.80 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not a good place to conduct sockpuppet investigations. Try opening a WP:SPI case, so that other clerks may take a look too.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The sock account is stale and conducting a SPI case is not a good advice despite i have other proofs regarding the block evading sock Heysem. But one should tag Heysem as "suspected sock of Lrednuas Senoroc". Also, what about the ip socks? As i showed above, the ip belongs to the same notorious sockmaster and continues the same agenda on talk pages. Unfortunately, i do realised that you are not the right admin to share info regarding this notorious long-term sock puppeter, impersonator, meatpuppeter, tendentious and disruptive vandal. Maybe it is because you are so busy, you do not pay attention to this problem enough and dismiss the evidences. I'll take my concerns to appropriate pages. Bye! 176.126.68.73 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I noticed a dubious account likely Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell/Kintetsubuffalo. He made his last edit on 23 March. Is it stale? As far as i remember, it requires 3 months to be regarded as "stale". 103.200.5.90 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock
I have just discovered that on 22 April you undid a block I had placed. It is normally considered desirable to consult an administrator before reversing an administrative action he or she has performed, and in the few occasions when that is not necessary it is a reasonable courtesy at least to inform him or her. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry question
What's the appropriate response to potential sockpuppetry when you don't know who the master account is? Specifically, I'm concerned about. They're far more familiar with the inner workings of the 'pedia than an editor whose only been around about a month ought to be. For example, their fourth edit was a non-admin closure of an AfD. They've also been explicitly asked about previous accounts and have ignored the question. Point is that this all looks very suspicious to me, but I don't really know what to do about it. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is, by definition, abusive usage of multiple accounts. Is there anything abusive in this case?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per point three of WP:ILLEGIT, editing the project space from an undisclosed alternate account is abusive. That's certainly what this looks like to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry in this case. It is possible that the account is a sock of a blocked user, and it is also possible that the user previously edited as an anonymous IP, which is allowed. So, the answer to your original question is: nothing. Without evidence of sockpuppetry, the appropriate response is to do nothing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

COI need comment: Coolpad Group
keep on ownership of the article, adding ad like content and he declared he is from Coolpad (not exactly the word staff), so could you comment on the thread in WP:COIN board or do something? Matthew_hk  t  c  14:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Look more complicated as two socks were created:


 * Matthew_hk  t  c  17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have WP:SPI for reporting sockpuppets.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You closure of the SPI on CommotioCerebri...
In this edit you wrote: "Making one logged-out edit is not abusive sockpuppetry. Case closed."

has just four edits in their edit history. No one becomes familiar with the wikipedia's baroque set of policies and guidelines in the course of making just four edits.
 * 1) Their very first edit, the removal of a deadlink, is highly untypical for a brand new contributor.  What brand new contributor even knows what a deadlink is?
 * 2) In their second edit they weigh in on a talk page discussion, as to whether a passage merits a failed verification tag.  How many newbies know the internal wikipedia jargon they use?  How many even know how to sign a talk page message?
 * 3) In their third edit they show they are already familiar with the convert template, and has experience arguing over when it should and shouldn't be used.  No newbie knows this.
 * 4) In their fourth edit they show enough of a familiarity with our notability guidelines that they quote a passage, just like an experienced contributor.

So, in spite of having just four edits under their belt, they are acting like an experienced contributor.

Might they have exercised the right to disappear, only to decide to return, under a new ID? Policy allows this. It does not allow those who decided to disappear to reappear using a stable of new IDs. Is a person who decided to exercise the right to disappear, then made the big decision to return under a new ID, only going to employ that new ID once a month? I don't find that credible, and I think you closed the investigation prematurely.

Don't clerks have tools that can confirm or refute that a contributor is making edits using multiple wiki-IDs from the same set of IP addresses? Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Clerks do not, but a handful of trusted users have access to the WP:Checkuser tool that can be used to see IP addresses of users. But, because of the privacy concerns, it may only be used when there is evidence of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is abusive usage of multiple accounts (see: WP:ILLEGIT). In this case, you show that the user is experienced and probably not new, but you didn't provide any evidence of abuse. Not every usage of multiple accounts is forbidden, just abusive. I'm not sure what you mean by "stable of new IDs". Where is that stable?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  05:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DisuseKid
Hello Vanjagenije, I have a few requests if you don't mind. This edit overrided the previous case that had not been archived yet. Is there any way to fix that? If not, then no big deal, it just kind of bothers my OCD. Also, would it be possible to merge Sockpuppet investigations/Parsley Man into the main SPI as well? Finally, could you please revoke talkpage access to prevent further shenanigans from the following socks:, , , and. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. I failed to notice that there was still one unarchived case that I overwritten. I fixed that.
 * That is, of course, possible. But, I need someone to archive Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid first. As I was the one who closed the case, I shouldn't be archiving. I would also like to comment on merging.
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanja, I archived DisuseKid. I knew a long time ago that Parsley Man was ✅ to DisuseKid (I assume that's the comment you wanted).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanja, I archived DisuseKid. I knew a long time ago that Parsley Man was ✅ to DisuseKid (I assume that's the comment you wanted).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Skyhook1 SPI
Hi Vanjagenije. is unfamiliar with SPI practices so can you please do whatever you need to do to make this edit kosher from a clerking perspective? --Neil N  talk to me 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! I've done maybe one or two SPI reports ever, and this one is nonstandard as it's going directly to the archive after already took action. — JFG talk 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be editing archives because, well, they are ... archives. What action did NeilN take?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted JFG's edit. You are free to open new case as described at WP:SPI ("How to open an investigation").  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll handle it. --Neil N  talk to me 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your help. — JFG talk 03:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JAVIERPASTORBELDA/ANTONIO IBÁÑEZ DE ALBA
Dear friend

Is it ok now for publishing this article about Antonio Ibáñez de Alba?

What changes do I have to make in order to have the problems solved?

Thanks

JAVIERPASTORBELDA (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you are talking about User:JAVIERPASTORBELDA/ANTONIO IBÁÑEZ DE ALBA. It has several issues. First, every statement should be supported by citations of reliable sources (see WP:V). You cited several sources, but you just placed them all at the end of the article. Instead, you should put a citation at the end of each statement, so that the reader can verify the statement. Also, you should add more WP:wikilinks to connect your article with other articles. Also, all your citations are in the form of bare URLs that are prone to WP:link rot. See WP:PLRT to learn how to solve link rot.
 * Another, bigger problem, is that the article was already deleted (twice) after a deletion discussion was held here: Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba. Participants in the discussion opined that the person is not WP:NOTABLE per Wikipedia's standards. It is allowed to recreate an article that was deleted after discussion, but only if you solve the issues that led to the deletion. In this case, the main issue was that editors felt that citations in the article do not represent "reliable independent sources with significant coverage" as mandated by WP:GNG. In the new version of the article (User:JAVIERPASTORBELDA/ANTONIO IBÁÑEZ DE ALBA) you did not solve this in any way. This new version contains the same citations that were present in the previous (deleted) version. This means that the person is simply not notable per Wikipedia standards and that you shouldn't be writing about them.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear friend

Why is he not notable for English Wikipedia when he is notable for French, Spanish, and German Wikipedia?

Antonio Ibáñez de Alba appears in lots of newspapers, books and scientific reviews.

I don´t understand why a notable researcher according to New Scientist, plenty of google books, Financial Times, El Mundo, El País, etc, is not notable only for the English Wikipedia

Thanks

JAVIERPASTORBELDA (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * French and Spanish Wikipedias are totally independent of English Wikipedia, and each has its own rules and standards. English Wikipedia, being the largest one, has somewhat higher standards of notability that other, smaller projects. I don't know about this particular case, but if you think the AfD discussion (Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba) was wrongly closed as "delete", you can ask for WP:Deletion review.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjec
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjec. 88.208.16.48 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: Steward User:Tegel has global blocked the IP range which the vandal used. 88.208.16.48 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

75.136.218.176
Hi,

I came across this IP's edits recently, and I saw that you blocked them for a year per Sockpuppet investigations/331905A4. It hasn't been terribly long since they began editing again after your block, so would you mind taking a look to see if the edits look similar to before? Thanks. 172.58.40.122 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Hello! Please check on this anonymous editor who keeps on initiating edit wars for weeks now and keeps making groundless accusations on various editors of sockpuppetry. There are no sufficient evidence to confirm they're the same users and yet this anonymous editor keeps on insisting they are and reverts their edits aggressively. It's very disruptive. I hope you can put an end to it. Thanks! 191.205.214.6 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.198.73.9
 * This is the third IP posting the same message on a third admin's page. I've blocked all of them. Pinging so he's aware. --Neil N  talk to me 06:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * IP Sock 121.219.136.184 is doing it again. He's posting the same message again to User talk:Ks0stm wanting to block someone. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Case closed
Hello. I noticed you closed this case because "This IP is not active any more. Case closed." But now that IP is back vandalising. Hessa94 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not "vandalizing". See WP:Vandalism to learn what vandalism is.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got confused with all those IP sock puppets. I was on an another user's "User contributions" page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive
Hi, I just wanted to let you know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cdg428 from May 2017, I think some of this information needs to be copied to the D.H.110 archive. I had mistakenly tried to do it myself but informed me that a clerk needs to do it and there is some procedure involved. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no need to copy anything.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the part.
 * ''The following accounts are Likely to D.H.110 (talk · contribs · count) and  Unrelated to the master:
 * ''Pepe.is.great (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
 * ''Free Pepe (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, no need to copy anything.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my request
Hello! and thank you for accepting my request. As I had mentioned before, my change wasn't meant to be promotional - the way I see it is that the person who got the startup added on Wikipedia did not have a right to do so. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of startups each year that get some notoriety yet NONE of them have a Wikipedia page. Furthermore, there is an Unthink company that has been in business for many years and has made it on the news, influenced others, etc. etc. and again doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. My effort was to simply make sure it was separated from the one that exists because there are a lot of famous 'Unthink' word users and authors. With that said, I do want to thank you for accepting my request, my question to you is- how do I complete the name change request? I'm not sure if I did already the right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikdotcom (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The rename was finished in the meantime. Welcome back.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Cyber Anakin" obsessive.
You may remember (and perhaps his obvious sockpuppet ), who was obsessed with commemorating the exploit of a hacker calling himself "Cyber Anakin"? Well, it looks like he hasn't given up, and is now calling himself.

I think a block for block evasion is in order, and given the long-ago creation dates for the accounts


 * Bugmenot123123123 - November 2007
 * Mdikici4001 - November 2016
 * Mamasanju - May 2015

that a Sockpuppet Investigation could find sleepers. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a consensus in Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17? Can you read till the last part where User:Ahunt reached a consensus that the mention be place in "International Reactions" page? Mamasanju (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Excerpt: "I would definitely support it going in International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown as a short note. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)". Mamasanju (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to get consensus for adding something to Page A, you don't get it by going to the talk page of Page B. Not at all difficult.


 * Normally I would that suggest you go to Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown, but since you're likely to be blocked for block evasion -- and that edits of block evaders can simply be rolled back -- that would be a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fell free to open a WP:Sockpuppet investigation and provide evidence. My talk page is not a right place for conducting sockpuppet investigations.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not here to conduct a sockpuppet investigation. I'm posting here because
 * a) you've dealt with this guy before;
 * b) the sockpuppetry is so obvious that an SPI would be unnecessary;
 * c) of reason a, no long explanation of the background would be necessary;
 * d) the ONLY reason I mention an SPI is the possibility of rooting out sleeper accounts.
 * Do you disagree with any of the above? --Calton | Talk 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially with the claim that I am somehow familiar with this case. My only interaction with this user (as long as I remember) was answering their talk page question once (User_talk:Bugmenot123123123).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SPI case opened: Sockpuppet investigations/Bugmenot123123123. Stickee (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: sock confirmed and blocked. Stickee (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment
My observation still stands correct. James Fenner was a sock of FarnuBak.

Also, if i find something in future, where should I comment about it, in case there is not enough evidence to initiate an SPI? — usernamekiran (talk)  12:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They are both sockpuppets of HarveyCarter (Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive). In the future, if there is no evidence, please do not comment about it. Throwing accusations without evidence is considered wp:personal attack.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats the point, in the end, both of these accounts belonged to the same user. Call them puppet, dummy, sock, or anything else; doesnt matter.
 * "Enough" is the keyword here. — usernamekiran (talk)  17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Women's Equality Party
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Women's Equality Party. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Review
Hi! You had voiced some concerns about the article(R Sudhakar) I had created. I have made many changes, in accordance with your recommendations. It would be wonderful if you could review it again, and tell me what needs to be changed. Thanks! Adwaith s (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia
Hi You need to discuss it on talk per WP:BRD and get consensus for the change. "Recomended" means that it is not an obligation an I am opposed to your edit. Could you revert yourself ? The user have reversed his removing. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, using your logic, I might say that WP:BRD is also a recommendation, not an obligation. Since you are the one who thinks we should be doing against the recommendation, the burden is on you to prove that this case is so exceptional that it's useful to ignore that recommendation.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The facts are there, I do not see any consensus to change the page. For the rest, the mention of countries is important for the reader. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need consensus to follow policies, guidelines, recommendations, etc. They are a result of consensus per se. You need to reach consensus not to follow recommendations. I see you are willing to discuss the issue, so I think we should continue this conversation at Talk:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia where you can state your arguments and try to reach consensus.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What consensus ? But I could participate to a discussion. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are different types of consensus. In this case, it is the so-called implicit consensus. On the Template:Infobox former country, there has been such recommendation since at least 2007 . Since nobody removed it in 10 years, it has become implicit consensus.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Template:Infobox former country, there has been such recommendation since at least 2007. That is not accurate. The reason the old revision looks like that's the case is that Template:Infobox former country WP:Transcludes Template:Infobox former country/doc. When looking at an old revision, the current version of Template:Infobox former country/doc is what gets transcluded, not the version that existed at that time. The recommendation was as a result of the discussion Template talk:Infobox former country, which I participated in. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. Anyway, that's the answer to your original question (What consensus?). Seams that you yourself have agreed to the recommendation .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, whom are you addressing? Me or ? TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. For these cases, I propose to put on a line the number of countries then add a footnote. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Provisional IRA vs SAS The Troubles conflict
Hi there I see you read my article, I'm working on. I've written many articles on this particular subject about specfic incidents relating to it. The one I'm working on now is a very early work in progress & it's focusing in on a key thearater of the conflict that helped decide the overall out come of the conflict. I'm going to change the name of the page as well. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdv123 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
Hi. You nominated my article for deletion. I believe it is truly a notable meeting, and the article for the Synod itself has not been made yet but i plan to create one. For reference, see the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and its accompanying list of participants. Neither of these articles have ever been deemed not notable. Thanks. Jgefd (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Burgle (surname)
Hi.

If I understand you correctly, you are nominating the page because it only contains a single entry? I wasn't aware we can't have pages for surnames with only a single notable entry. (it could also be because it's orphaned, not 100% sure because the language used for the G6 nom is very technical)

You are aware surname pages aren't used strictly as disambiguation pages, often containing useful information on the surname itself?

Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it does not contain a single entry, it contains zero. There are like billion surnames and there is no point to have a page on every one of them. There is only a point to have a page about a surname if there are at least two notable people (with articles) who have that surname. Surname can be understood as a group of people, so WP:A7 also applies.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "There is only a point to have a page about a surname if there are at least two notable people (with articles) who have that surname." Thank you - I did not know. In fact, I couldn't find our policy on surname articles at all. Could I ask you where to find it? Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about any specific policy about last names. But you can apply other relevant policies. The article on surname is either a disambiguation page, in which case it should satisfy WP:2DABS, or it an article, in which case it should satisfy WP:GNG. My comment that we should only have a surname if there are two articles is connected to wp:2DABS.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  07:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

AFOI SPI
Hello Vanjagenije, I just notice you closed the spi but I would like to inform you that after user Amrit Foundation Of India’s soft block user was registered who was blocked by Alexf few days back for spamming around and Niveditap was registered exactly a day after Amritindia and repeated the same thing so I believe s/he should be blocked per duck. Cheers – GSS (talk |c|em ) 16:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you knew there is one more account, you should have reported it.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That account was already blocked so I thought it's unnecessary to report. GSS (talk |c|em ) 17:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

New socks of Expertseo
I tried to post this to Sockpuppet investigations/Expertseo/Archive but for some reason cant post there. Can you post it over there please. Thanks.

2017


Both tag teaming and creating pro-Indian National Congress and anti-Bharatiya Janata Party articles on wikipedia.

Evidence - | Edwige9 creates article attacking BJP which is tagged as | POV, soon | Rudra9 pops in and removes the POV tags.

We have seen this behaviour in the past. On the DMAT scam page which was created by banned sock Katyaan, | Rudra9 pops in and removes the unreviewed tag. How convenient, one sock creates attack page against people connected to BJP another sock helps him deal with neutrality and unreviewed tags.

Same shillery on Madhya Pradesh Scholarship Scam page. Katyaan creates it | Rudra9 reviews it and removes the unreviewed tag.

The socks need to be banned and the attack pages either deleted or corrected to wikipedia standards. Throwacc (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, go to WP:SPI and follow the steps described in the box titled "How to open an investigation". Do not try to edit the archive.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Incorrigible Troll
Was that supposed to be re-opened when it was moved? I don't usually participate at SPI, so I'm not wholly familiar with it. p b  p  02:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for it to be re-opened?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess not? What happens now?  p  b  p  14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing I guess. The case will be archived soon.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk training
It's been a few months since our last conversation about clerking, where you proposed take me on as a trainee when you found the time. I was wondering if we're any closer to that actually happening? I'm still very much interested. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I really forgot about it. Now, I'm busy again, as you can see from my contributions (or the lack of them). I should have more free time in few weeks.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Let me know when you ready to get started. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (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) 04:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Album Psiholosko propagandni komplet M-91.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Album Psiholosko propagandni komplet M-91.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kako bubanj kaže Album.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kako bubanj kaže Album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Jionakeli
Why you closed the SPI early? Evidence is rather strong for someone who made hardly 190 edits since March 2017. was active until May this year and had same interests as Jionakeli. What I believe is that you need to keep this SPI on hold. I had small conversation with Ponyo on his talk page, it is obvious that, and  are same user. Ponyo said that I should start a new SPI. We can move this Jionakeli report to Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007 since ProudIndian007 is the oldest sockmaster of these 3 sockmasters. I will provide the evidence how these all accounts are related. This sounds like a mess but this would need to be cleared. I have my evidence prepared to present it, so for now you can put the SPI on hold and then ask checkuser to check Drivarum with Jionakeli when there will be enough evidence provided. Capitals00 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Salvidrim has archived the SPI. I think it will be better to start an SPI on Sockpuppet investigations/ProudIndian007 like I said, with the evidence that how these four accounts (ProudIndian007, Anatha Gulati, MehulWB, Jionakeli) are related. What do you say? Capitals00 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't close it early, I closed it 17 days after it was filed. Second, I explained why I closed it in the same edit, so I don't know how to answer your first question. I've been a SPI Clerk for 3 years and, trust me, I know what strong evidence of sockpuppetry is. I don't say is not a sockpuppet, I say that the evidence provided at the SPI was not sufficient to block the user for sockpuppetry. It is the burden of the one who opens the investigations to provide strong convincing evidence. I say that you are free to open new investigation, but be aware that you have to provide convincing evidence. Things like "they both write long edit summaries" and "they both have interest in Hindu-muslim conflicts" (I'm quoting you from ) are not convincing evidence of sockpuppetry.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging cases
Isn't it better to merge them, as they are about the same user? 1st casesecond case 52.231.37.149 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If they are about the same user, which is still not conformed as I can see.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean the second case should be merged with the first case. It is the same user who was accused for sockpuppetry, confirmed or not. 52.231.37.149 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what are you talking about. In the first case it's who is accused as the master, and in the second it's .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Legacypac. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Fulham homestead, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletions
Hello Vanjagenije, I had no idea that some of the pages that you just deleted were originally made by a sock (Albanian historian, can't say I've even heard of him), but while there were admittedly some POV issues on a few of them (excessive use of the word "patriot" etc etc) a lot of it was actually useful info that was helpful for wiki to have. A few of the pages were pages I had extensively edited myself. Is there any way that some of the lost material could be resurrected, so to speak? It seems unjust for the project to lose informative pages just because the person who started the page was a sock, not even mentioning what it means for the work of the people who edited it afterhand. Thanks for hearing me out. Cheers, --Yalens (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked, and none of those pages was "extensively edited" by anyone except sockpuppets. Otherwise, I would not be allowed to delete them per WP:G5. Maybe I missed some extensive edits. Can you name an article that you extensively edited? I must point out that it is not "unjust" to delete pages that were created in violation of a block. Blocking is very important part of Wikipedia system and it has to be enforced strictly because of the integrity of the project. Recent debate on the topic showed consensus for strict interpretation of WP:G5. Of course, I can undelete some of the articles if you want to take full responsibility for them. According to WP:PROXYING, you would need to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and [you] have independent reasons for making such edits.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanjagenije, is there a way you can restore Mustafa Gjinishi, Dah Polloshka, and Shpend Dragobia? This were valid articles and I had already edited parts of them. --Mondiad (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I undeleted them and moved to Draft:Mustafa Gjinishi, Draft:Dah Polloshka and Draft:Shpend Dragobia. You may move them to the main namespace if you are sure they are useful and verifiable.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanjagenije. Can you restore Frasheri family, Stefanaq Pollo and Kristo Frasheri? I added one or more categories to them and corrected some things on the later article. I searched for stuff for those three last week and planned to expand them. They were important articles and did not have issues with WP:Undue and WP:POV. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stath Melani too. He was a notable and important person, article was edited by several editors and I was going to put some stuff there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ktrimi, I was just about to mention Stath Melani. Vanjagenije: my edits, for example extensively to Stath Melani (in my opinion, I spent 3+ hours on it) to add info on his earlier life, remove a couple POV wordings ("patriot"), fix sourcing issues that had been brought up by another editor, add details and various other reasons. Wish I had diffs to show you but the page is deleted. No I have not ever edited at the "direction" of the sockmaster Alb historian and my edits were the definition of independent from his (hers?) as I have never once interacted with him/her as far as I recall (and the possible insinuation with the linking of the page WP:PROXYING that I did made me sad. Although I have recently focused on Albanian-related pages, pre-2015-ish I rarely touched the Balkans on Wiki and I've been around for almost a decade. Perhaps that insinuation probably wasn't intended.) . I'm not some lawyer expert in Wikipedia law, but I believe that sockpuppets occasionally make useful edits which are appreciated by uninvolved editors and have restored them in the past (here's one diff: []) and been thanked for it, as edits are not the same entity as the person who made them (as I see it). On the other hand in general I agree with you completely on maintaining the integrity of blocks unless they are properly appealed, so thank you for your efforts to ensure such integrity is upheld.
 * Another page that comes to mind is Kthella(tribe) an Albanian highland tribe. Regrettably I don't remember how I had edited that one (no diffs, it's deleted) but it was on my watchlist, and if I recall correctly, Ktrimi had also edited that one. In any case, the page was small, there may have been useful sourcing there which I had intended to look at in the future, which is especially useful for topics like Albanian highland tribes for which sourcing in English are often rare. But I can't find the sources now that it's deleted, help please? Thanks again. --Yalens (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored Stath Melani. You are right, I shouldn't have deleted it, it was extensively edited by others. I don't think Kthella (tribe) need to be restored as it is too short, just two sentences. You can use sources from the deleted article to write new one. Here are those sources:         .  I resotred Stefanaq Pollo article and moved it to Draft:Stefanaq Pollo for you. There are/were no articles titled Kristo Frasheri nor Frasheri family.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found them. I restored Frashëri family Draft:Frashëri family for you. Kristo Frashëri article was too short, I don't think it needs to be restored. You write it from scratch using the sources. Here they are:     .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Cheers --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanjagenije. Kristo Frasheri article was a translated version of content that can be easily found in sq.wikipedia. I am preparing more suitable stuff based on sources I found last week. Cheers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Serbian inventions
I noticed mass reverts on Serbian inventions. I have issues with this. #1 issue is that Constantine was an Illyrian from the territory of present Serbia. This makes him an ethnic relative of the natives of Serbia. Serbians Are Serbian by name but descendants of ages of balkan people. If you look at any other lists for countries you will notice the same pattern. Contributors who are not from the present day modern country name. #2 Vinča culture is equal to the Chinese list depicting their ancient culture or the Italian list discussing Etrucan contributions or the Pakistan list talking about the Indus valley civilization from 10000 years ago. #3 the vampire is a cultural contribution, ones of the like found in all nations lists. Some nations even have sections entirely to cultural contributions. This is very inconsistent

If you notice I did exactly what you did and removed prehistoric inventions from a couple nations saying "these prehistoric people were hardly Chinese or Pakistani or Mexican" just as you did with Serbia. I was instantaneously reverted. I seem to be missing the part where any of this is fair and makes any sense Carlo0 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, actually you inserted back the prehistoric inventions that I removed from the Serbian list.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No I apologize for that I am civily trying to come to a conclusion but what I am trying to say is that all of the other removals of prehistoric inventions were readded other than Serbia. Also we have not come to a conclusion about Constantine as that is an easier debate seeing as he was an Illyrian a couple hundred years before the Slavic migration therefore he is as Serbian as aboriginals are considered American, Canadian or Australian

Page Amadeus Electric Cuartet
Hello Vanjagenije

I am a new colaborator and I have not read the entire wikipedia guideliness. I began writing an article about the Female Romanian group Amadeus Electric Cuartet, strings and keyboards group, very very famous in all Europe and Africa, they have about 60 original songs and 120 covers including Robie William's, Guns and Roses', consuelito velasquez' (mexico), vivaldi, and others. I'm a very big fan of the group and I didn't find information here and I wanted to create it because I think they deserve a place here.

I made it like something I wanted to edit later, not to publish inmediatelly, I have to look for more information first. Please help me to do an article that I can publish and send for revision when I consider is finished.

They just had a concert two days ago in Tunisia Festival (d'El Jem amphitheatre) https://www.facebook.com/TrupaAmadeus/videos/1394069630640277/ https://festivaleljem.tn/ so I think you are wrong when you classificate like not relevant.

Please help me to create it, but in parts because I don't have much time because of work

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arayadoc (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! In Wikipedia, we can only write article about subject that are WP:NOTABLE. Notability is proved by citing reliable independent sources that significantly cover the subject. The article, as you wrote it, cited no independent reliable sources to prove the notability of the band. It only cited band's official web site, which is not an independent source. Also, the article made no WP:credible claim of significance of the subject, thus it qualified for speedy deletion under the WP:A7 criteria. If you want to work on the article slowly, you should not put it in the wp:main namespace, but you should create it in the wp:draft namespace (like this: Draft:Amadeus Quartet). Then, you can use the WP:AFC process to let other users review your draft before it's moved to the main namespace.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Vanjagenije

Well I understand that my article didn't reach many of the inclusion criteria. But there is a fact here: there is a famous band in Europe and Africa at least (not in america) and people can not search any information about here in wikipedia, like if they don't exist, and once I thought I could find everything here... I think that's is no good, so I want to help.

I'm going to write a large article and then I'll send it again. Can I notify you that? You are from Europe so maybe you can help me more than others...

I need to know if my "reliable resources" can be magazines posting events, or web pages mentioning the group? or that would give to the article "credible claim of significance"? There are some things I don't understand completely. And maybe there are newspapers that have an article about them but I can't get online, or maybe I just find information in Romanian, and I don't speak it... I don't know...

Thank you Arayadoc (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, you can't find everything here. You can only find information about notable subjects. Everything is explained at WP:V and WP:reliable sources. Both magazines and web sites may and may not be reliable sources, depending on their quality and neutrality. Sources don't need to be online, printed books and magazine are fine as long as they are reliable and you WP:cite them properly. Also, sources don't need to be in English.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Vanjagenije I live in South america, so I cant find books or any printed sources from there (Romania or other country of Europe), and I don't have friends in Rumania yet... And if there is something in Romanian I won't undestand what it says, at least I find a good translator on line... I'll read everything and will try my best to write it again, and I will contact you again, maybe you hear about the group someday too.

Thank you from Venezuela Arayadoc (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to ask me for any advice you need.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

whoops
sorry to have wasted your time with the speedy you reverted at Samaritanism. My duh. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Putri Darunilaw
Sorry mr/ms Vanja, why my page about Putri Darunilaw is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnifajriaji (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Becaouse the person lacks WP:NOTABILITY.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Daughters of Destiny (TV series)
Hi. I'm very confused - when you deleted Daughters of Destiny (TV series) was it a redirect or an article? I created a redirect, which I think was useful and I would like to recreate. If some silly billy then made it into a useless article then fine, but I still think the redirect was useful. Someone is working on a proper article about the TV series and as soon as it is ready then this redirect, if not needed as its title, can go there. Obviously, I can't see the article history so I have no idea what happened to it after I created it ... please advise. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was (literally) empty. You created a redirect, and it was blanked by an IP user (User:58.160.88.138). I though it was you forgetting to log in. I can undelete the page and revert it to the redirect, if you want.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes please, that would be lovely. No, it wasn't me blanking it ... maybe someone with a beef against the series, the school, me, the UNiverse perhaps ... who knows? Thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick - many thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Nikon D850 - References to self-published sources
Hello Vanjagenije! Thank you for your review of Nikon D850. I haven't edited Wikipedia in many years, so please help me understand the maintenance note "This article may contain improper references to self-published sources." Is this because the only source the article cites is the announcement from Nikon USA's website?

Also, I've added some links to the page from both Nikon and the relevant templates, so please consider removing the orphan maintenance note. Thanks!

– Damsleth Talk 19:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was the wrong tag. It should be "WP:primary sources", not "wp:self-published sources".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help :)

 * Thank you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - blocked user without malicious behaviour
Dear Vanjagenije, MolecularPlant here. I had some problems accessing the full capabilities on Wiki and you requested my IP to look into it as indeed you guys didn't find anywrongdoing on my side. (here's a link to my talk page). My IP address is 213.189.165.72. Thanks a million for the help! —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the exact problem now?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

New sock of user:Yahadzija
Hi, (pozdrav kolega),

It appears as user:Yahadzija made an another sock: User:Poglavar. So, I saw that you are already engaged with this matter, and maybe you could do what you think it appropriate. Thanks in advance, hvala i pozdrav. --C3r4 ( (ask me) ) 12:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User Aergas propably Pob3qu3
Hello, it seems strange that the user aergas, who was involved in personal conflicts in the article of Mexicans of European descent, two years later comes the user pop3qu3 who makes the same editions, the same messages in the same pages. The user pob3qu3 removed references and reliable content to add doubtful content supported only by three sources that contein about racism in Mexico. Regards--Linderloop (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations are conducted at WP:SPI, not on my talk page.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI Clerk training
It's been a week since I first posted this. Given that you still haven't responded, I can only assume you didn't see my first post, so I'll repost this here in the hopes that it's more visible this time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to keep pestering you about this. You said you should have more time in a few weeks when we last spoke about month ago. Any chance we can get started soon? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm really busy. Maybe I'l have more time soon.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you able to give me a little more concrete of a time frame? When you say soon, are we talking days, weeks, months? I'd like to think it's not your intent, but kind of feels like you keep putting me off every time I ask about this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm hoping that we could agree to a more fixed schedule for this, with the understanding that it can change if it has to. Given that it's been over a year since I first put my name forward for clerk training, I get the impression we're not actually going to get this off the ground without some better scheduling. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)