User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I think you'll know what this one's for... LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Modi

Hi, I am not disputing whether the sources recently removed/added/removed from Narendra Modi support the statement to which they were appended. However, we don't need a ton of sources for most statements made on Wikipedia and we really should be limiting the number that are used in lead sections. Leads are intended to summarise the contents of an article and it is not usually necessary to cite anything in them because the points should be sourced in the body section. Obviously, the Modi article is rather more contentious than average and so there are citations in its lead - but there is no need to go overboard with them. Does this make sense? If not then I think you need to discuss it at Talk:Narendra Modi. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; but in that case, shouldn't we keep the most reliable source, in this case Jaffrelot? Also, we would need to watch out for removal of that content for "lack of sources" sometime in the future.Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Christophe Jaffrelot is reliable, sure, although pro-Modi people have voiced opinions on the talk page that he is biassed. Given that, I think that you would have to discuss it because we have to give weight to all opinions. As for potential removal, please remember that the info is supposed to be sourced in the body - the source in the lead is really there to act as a sort of deterrent to any passing stranger who might otherwise think "ooh, that's not nice" and remove the statement. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the valid answer about the issue.So i remove it until vanamonde93 provide it online and why are so crazy about adding it.Show the source and add it.No problem.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a source from a print journal, what on earth do you mean "show it online?" Like thousands of other wikipedia sources, it's not available online to the public. You could pay, and get access. I had access through an institution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok,offline sources are liable to be used in the article if reliable.No doubt about the reliability of Jaffrelot.But how can i believe what you are adding is true or not.Evidence is needed here for this dispute and what is the reason behind this hurry.Scan the page and add it.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 19:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing books and reference grouping

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your work at the main BJP article. Such vital Indian articles like these are often in a bad state since they require a lot of work and attention. I've noticed that you've used the same reference of Guha's book multiple times. There is no need for that, you can simply combine similar references by adding <ref name=Guha>{{cite book...title...ISBN...date}}</ref> in the main cite and typing only <ref name=Guha/> everywhere else; this will group the reference.

Another even better thing to do while citing multiple page nos from one single book is to use the {{sfn}} format. In your case all you need to do is, in the "references" section...add *{{cite book|last=Guha|first=Ramchandra|ISBN=...|title=...|year=2001|ref=harv}}, and for citing elsewhere in the article depending on the page number, just type {{sfn|Guha|2001|p=20 (the needed page no)}}. Citing the exact page makes it easier for the readers in terms of verifiability and avoids clutter. The main help page is Help:Shortened footnotes#Overview (Read it, a simple example is given) and feel free to ask any questions. Have a nice day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Uma Bharti

That was good work on Uma Bharti. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

About the period before British Raj

Hi Vanamonde, some sources claim that it was with the British that the divide and rule policy began. But i suppose it was hogwash as some sources claim that there was religious strife before the Raj as well. I am not speaking about temple destruction, i now understand that it is considered under the article Iconoclasm and hence is not under persecution. What do you say about it ? Just make the criteria for persecution clear to me once (is it the killing of people of a religion, forced conversions, deliberately trying to stop the practising of a faith, etc.,), that would be helpful. Thanks. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

KRINZ, I would define religious persecution as violence targeted at a particular religious community, like the Hindus, as opposed to violence against a population in general. Of course, others might define it slightly differently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Godhara train incident

If you have a suggestion for the edit regarding Godhara train buring, please post on Article's talk page, there is open discussion over there. Please refrain from removal of sourced cotents without proper consensus. suggest us and we'll change it if founds better. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 06:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Kswarrior What exactly do you think you are doing? I reverted you, because you messed up the formatting very badly when you tried to add links. I don't have the time to correct them myself, but users should not have to read a badly formatted article. Correct your mistakes and re-add the content, I'm not bothered about that. Did you even check the article afterwards to see what your edits had done? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

RSS

Listen, I can see that you are very keen to insert material about RSS volunteer work, but sources published by the RSS, commissioned by the RSS, or written by its affiliates, cannot ever be rigorous sources for that sort of thing. Go read WP:RS. I'm not sure you noticed, but I retained one of your sources, because it was acceptable (although still not very good). It looks like you just did a search on google books, and inserted the first thing you found; that is not good enough. And stop putting that "news" item in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am making article more neutral and factful rather than your biased and only accusations edits, for your kind information all isbn books is to be provided through google books link, so data can be retrieved. First of all correct your mindset about what I am doing, if you did google search and it came first, then undoubtedly it is most popular and most visited page. please go and read WP:RS, if in your view it is not correct source than you can add rather than remove cited content. Neither it is published or sourced by RSS, those all are independent authors and publishers, and rest i will answer on Article's Talk page. You are deeply involved in removing cited content and distorting article towards negativity. This should be reported. Also, Mr. Vanamonde93 this is not the way you write on my talk page, this is the matter related RSS and acting debate is in place on article's talk page. This behavior is rude and the way you have written is acceptable. I strongly suggest you to refrain yourself by doing this type of activity. Notifying to you on your talk page.

Kswarrior (talk) KLS 05:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Go see the RSS talk. And stop making meaningless complaints. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am having real issues understanding KSW, do you know what he is getting at? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@DS afraid not, my friend. He's gotten increasingly incoherent, as you must have noticed. I was going to ask YOU the same :-). The question now is, what do we do about it? I don't know if it's worth going to ANI, because he isn't actually edit-warring, at least for the time being. I was just going to let him cool off a little, and ensure he doesn't do too much damage. If he starts putting in ridiculous sources again, we should probably report him somewhere. I haven't actually reported anybody before, so I'm going to defer to you on that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, he seems to be following me around, I had just removed the same bloody duplications from the article. Bingo, it has been duplicated again. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DS, since this clown has made a reappearance, and is engaging in EXACTLY the same kind of behaviour, I think we'd be justified in reporting him. To ANI perhaps? what do you think? In addition to trying to re-insert the sources we removed, he's also trying to remove EPW, calling it unreliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs more rope, he is still a newbie. I am going to notify him of the discretionary sanctions though, the removal of that content on the RSS article was a terrible POV push. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@DS: Fair enough. It's remarkably annoying, though, since you can't have a coherent conversation with him, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well he is at ANEW now, he hit 5 reverts on the RSS page, just keeps removing the same section. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent afd

Hi again, just wanted to tell you (in case you already didn't know) when there has been a quite convincing reason for keep or a big improvement in an article while it's being afded, the nominator can withdraw it—see Wikipedia:AfD#Withdrawing a nomination.

Regarding your current one, personally, I got quite convinced by this user's input. Also, I don't usually participate in such discussions about big topics where expert input is needed and this isn't the usual non-controversial Afd where a distinct subject's notability is only questioned. Of course, I'm not telling you to actually withdraw it; there's no harm in keeping it open till it gets reviewed by a closing admin, who knows, we might get to see whether there are more diverse opinions on it by some more experienced users rather than just a few. Wishing you well, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

UN, thanks for letting me know; I hadn't checked in for a day or so. Yes, the new reasons are convincing, and I withdrew the nomination. The arguments of IZAK are, of course, based on the massive quantities of content BM added after the nomination. Of course, that's a good thing; I just wished he'd started out with the real content, and saved everybody some trouble. Cheers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Modi article

Hello there,

Please can you enlighten me as to where the bias is in adding a signature to the article, and adding the fact that he is set to meet the US ambassador? There is no political suggestion in either of the two edits.

--RaviC (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RC, the question is not of political bias. You are correct, the statement doesn't have political bias. WP:DUE is talking about whether the information is important enough to mention. In this case, IF the meeting led to Modi getting a visa, THEN it would be important enough to mention. That is not (yet) the case. So, mentioning it would be speculative, and speculation is avoidable.

I only reverted the addition of the signature, because it was tacked on to the same edit. But, I don't think it's necessary; it doesn't add anything to the article. Does that make sense? If you're not convinced, I think you should take it to the article talk, because two editors (including me) have voiced objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I do feel that it's notable to mention that the first direct contact between the US and Modi in about a decade will occur soon. As for the signature, most major political articles have one present - for that reason there is a parameter added for them in the infobox. To be frank, something as small as a signature is not something I want to waste my time on debating. --RaviC (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the signature.

Whether you feel it is notable is not, unfortunately, relevant. The fact that the meeting has happened isn't in dispute, but its significance is. As the source I gave above shows, the US itself denies it is significant. If we were to mention the meeting, then we would have to mention both interpretations of it. THAT would be incredibly wordy for a minor incident. It would also be speculative, because no change has actually happened yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

I presented bothe sides of the story with neutral sources, but it seems you have no time to check these sources and carried out a wholesale reverting of my edits. Here is one example : this article gave a wrong reference to Krishna Iyer which is a playback singer, I corrected it and linked it to Justice V R Krishna Iyer (click this link to read that Wikipedia article, which I never edited, it states Mr Iyer was a minister in communist government in Kerala). But you reverted my edit, alleging my edit was unsourced. Is my linking to already existing Wikipedia article "unsourced"? Wikipedia is not for pushing communist POVs, neutrality and sourcing is my concern as well as Wikipedia's. I hope you will understand that I am not "pushing" any POV but presenting both sides of the coin as well as presenting court verdict which was missing from the article. Nevertheless, if someone insists on pushing the communist POV by hiding the communist link of Krishna Iyer, I will not take the matter to Wikipedia Tribunal, because I have no time for useless fights. VJha (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I read your comments to me. Why you say I did not give a source for Krishna Iyer's communist past ? I gave the link to pre-existing Wikipedia article on him : V R Krishna Iyer. Please read the first few pages of his report and the list of 8-members (find it through Google Search, there are three PDF files): CCT was a private body comprising some leftists only. As for my "repetitions", I briefly brought three different standpoints at one place so that readers could compare all standpoints. There is no bias in my edits, my sole purpose was to present a holistic view. As for Kar Seva, entire Ayodhya issue (Babri Masjid) since 1992 is a result of VHP's Kar Seva and there are thousands of links to it, on Wikipedia too. The reason why I introduced it is because due to VHP's link to Kar Sevaks killed in the train, a planned reprisal took place. Without VHP's involvement, there would not have been a great backlash. And due to VHP. Gujarat govt had no courage to act firmly. You will see I have no bias for anyone, I simply tried to make the article better, neutral and factual with proper sources. You displayed the decency of discussing. But I find another editor is reverting without discussing. I request you to improve this article with the help of sources I have provided (they are all leftist or neutral sources, none of them are pro-Modi). I have little time for editing Wikipedia due to my preoccupations, and I have no interest in fighting with editors. Please help. VJha (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

NS Commission

That looks like a decent start on the NS Commission - good stuff. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

BJP history

First of all, let me thank you for your efforts in revamping the BJP article. It can serve as a model for other Indian-party articles.

Apart from lack of referencing, there are three reasons I redirected the history article. Firstly, there's no need to split the parent BJP article, which is still quite short. Secondly, this party is only 35 years old, so its history is not really going to be as long as that of the Indian National Congress or the U.S. Republican Party. Lastly, and maybe most debatably, I think even the history section of the parent article veers off-focus. Given that the NDA has its own article (and that the Vajpayee govt probably should have one in the vein of, say, Kennedy Administration), I think the latter part of the history section should remain primarily focussed on BJP affairs (elections, organisational issues etc), instead of going into detail about NDA matters. So that shortens the relevant history stuff even more.

That's why I don't think there needs to be another article. Yes, "There is certainly historical material left out of the main article", but it can all be incorporated in the main article itself.—indopug (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer userrights granted

Hello Vanamonde93. Your account has been granted the "rollback" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

You have been dragged to the drama board, see here Darkness Shines (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming a new user

Did you see this edit made at Medha Patkar? Looks like a possible sockpuppet to me...what do you think? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, blocked already...that was impressive. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention....seems like a definite sock, but I appear to have missed the fun, having been asleep. That user's really been causing some havoc, haven't they? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi edits reverted

Hi, you reverted my edits about Sonia Gandhi, citing them " meaningless accusations", and the sources I provided- which all are reputed national newspapers "not good enough". If you are unsatisfied with the formatting of the sources, you can edit it. However, I don't see why, what I have added shouldn't be there on that wiki page. Please explain your actions, or else I would have to undo it. Thanks. Msec109 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Film School

As explained, the sources quoted where blogs that led to broken links: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101209/film_nm/us_school/ and a source that said a lawsuit was 'proposed". If you would like for this content to remain, please provide a credible source for an actual class action lawsuit.

Furthermore, the statement that the school lost its accreditation status is false. This statement shows malicious intent and has directly negatively impacted the reputation of the college. A source and phone number have been provided in order to verify whether Los Angeles Film School had their accreditation revoked. It is the same source that the original author used to state the contrary.

Please verify information for accuracy prior to posting / deleting.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MicheleWiki (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refer directly to the accrediting body ACCET: both on their cite and via direct phone call: ACCET never revoked accreditation. That is a reference directly from the source.

the other direct reference is from the ACCSC accrediting body, which I provided (again, a direct source) and which you removed for no reason cited.... you did that twice. Other than citing direct sources (the actual accrediting organizations) what more can one do to prove accuracy? By the way, I have never been affiliated with Los Angeles Film School. I had been promoting mis-information on this Wiki page and now I am trying to set the record straight to remedy the problems this mis-information has created.

In order for Wiki to remain a credible source, it is imperative that factual information is provided. If LAFS lost accreditation of any sort, please provide a link that is verifiable. At present, the accrediting bodies directly refute what is stated on this page. I have tried to set the record straight, only to have my sources deleted without cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MicheleWiki (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Odd Comment in Narendra Modi article

Hello. Hope you're well. I've just noticed this phrase "I really like your writing style, fantastic information, thanks for putting up fdegbfekbdkfkakc" at the bottom of the Modi Article but can't see it in the edit page for the article to remove it. Could you help me figure out what's going on?Cowlibob (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Yeah good spotting. I suspect it's in one of the templates, and I will search for it, you could make an effort too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cowlibob:As I thought, it was vandalism at Template: Chief Ministers of Gujarat, if you're curious. It's fixed now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know people vandalised templates as well ,sigh. Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Manveermalhi

Hi. I'd just like to point out this user who's recently edited both Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi articles. He has clear INC bias but I'm unsure in how to deal with his edits. Am I able to just reverse all his edits based on him having a bias or is that against wikipedia guidelines on political articles.Cowlibob (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Let's face it, you knew you were going to get this. For all your work in improving, participating actively in discussions and protecting Indian politics-related pages. Other than the dearth of such editors, it can really sometimes be a tiresome and soul-crushing job. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend! Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for revoking edits

Hey,

Please can you tell me why the edits I submitted to the following page were revoked by you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohd._Ahmed_Khan_v._Shah_Bano_Begum&oldid=606778974

I look forward to your response.

Best,

Aravind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindkannankara (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I shall try again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindkannankara (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you online right now?

Message left at 08:20 WP time Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

POV editing

Hi Vanamonde93. Please see this discussion relating to edits reverted by you. Thnaks and regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have found a whole lot of other edits done under quite a few other IP addresses. I've prepared all the diffs as evidence. Can I had it to the sock inquest that you opened or should these now be treated as a new case and repored as a separate case? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I am no authority on SPIs, but I would imagine it would depend on the evidence. D'you want to point me to it? If it seems clear enough, then by all means; if not, maybe a separate one is better. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rui_Gabriel_Correia/sandbox#New_Section

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Having looked over the list, I would agree with you, they certainly seem to be POV pushing. Add the blatant ones to the SPI, by all means. However, it seems like all the IPs are from the same range, which to my untrained eye, means they are from the same location. This would bear out stumink's claim that they "forgot;" nonetheless, some disciplinary action is merited, so add them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

citation for Broner

http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/news/story?id=2082834&s=box&type=story

Broner was officially suspended by CMB, see article, it's true. Please help me add that to wiki and I'll leave it alone, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.22.28 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

FAM167A

I declined your CSD tagging of FAM167A as a protein is not eligible for deletion under CSD A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: If my tagging was incorrect then I apologize, I am new to the page reviewing thing. For future reference, what was the appropriate response to that page? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It would not be eligible for deletion under any speedy deletion. If you wanted to pursue deletion, it would have to be under AfD. Since the protein does exist and has two references, adding in the {{gene-8-stub}} would be the best response. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: what the bloody hell is this for? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it personally - it does not mean I don't find you a valuable editor or that I want to pursue any procedure on the arbitration page. Actually, I think you're a pretty good wikipedian. It just seems to be just an (incomplete) list of all editors in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan articles, and unlike DS, I'm not planning to become active on that page. I was asking myself the same question here [1] and will further detail my reply after I get a reply to my question on this to DS. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed you, but I strongly recommend that you add yourself to the list. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian civil war

Well, first, I won't tolerate such attitude. I do know what I'am doing, so, please, consider changing your attitude when speaking to strangers. Secondly, one of the new government's top officials had said, that it's in fact a civil war that is ravaging in his country, so, I took the first step in adding this information to the Wiki What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.112.162 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Yup, I messed the formatting, but if you ever read Wikipedia's rules, you should probably know, that you can state it as a reasoning for neglecting the editing. Anyway, I won't start an edit war, but you know, there are rules off course, that prevent you from starting one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.112.162 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Hi Vana We are crossing paths again :) Noticed you have opposed my recent edit on this page.

WP:NPOV require us to present material in an neutral manner. I removed this sentence since it pushes a certain POV and not neutral -> However they were perceived by some commentators as a justification of violence against Muslims

In the edit done, I have kept the controversial remark by subject and the PMO clarification. This is sufficient to allow any reader to create an opinion of their own.

If you still have concerns, we can discuss further on the subject page and arrive at a consensus. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please explain?

[2]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@NeilN: Entirely my bad, and most sincere apologies. Attempting to edit with multiple tabs open, was trying to rollback vandalism elsewhere. I've undone it; again, very sorry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

About that piano

I may be new but I've heard about edit warring and such and I don't want to create one, so if you can explain why this is vandalism then I don't have to revert to the new version. As far as I know, vandalism is inserting garbage into an article and making it look poor. Everyqueen (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

that was not a minor edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinnadam (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work

Only 2600 edits yet, and already highly appreciated. You seem to be doing a good job. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Vanamonde93, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and   Tentinator   06:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I see you've started in with STiki and are using it a lot. Keep up the good work!Jacona (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Modi article

Hey. Hope you're well. Is there anything that can be done to prevent people editing this article for a time as it's a current event? Currently many users presumably celebratory BJP supporters are just making edits without taking any care to follow the rules like sourcing and NPOV. I tried to make a partial edit to fix the issues but it just gets changed back.Cowlibob (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: You're right, there's sheer madness overwhelming that page. Unfortunately, because no actual dispute is happening, I think there is little we can do except to try and guide the rush somewhat. If there is the slightest hint of an edit war, though, we could request temporary full protection for the page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry bout' that.

It seems my little brother got on the computer and edited the article I was reading because he was bored [Walrus] while I was doing a couple chores, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.15.152 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti

Hey there. I don't have any really strong feelings about this user, but I did a little looking around, and found this recent incident at WP:ANI. It's from about three months ago, and they've definitely already been under some scrutiny. You may want to contact either the mentor or some of the admins who participated and see what they think and the more recent events. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Torchiest: Hey, thanks for looking that up. The reason I suggested requesting AE was that I was aware this case had taken place, though I couldn't be bothered to find this. In any case, it turns out our mutual friend Joshua Jonathan was one of the users who offered to mentor him, which is part of the reason Blades cooled down. Joshua mentioned this to me, so I dropped the issue, though of course I'm watching out for this guy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RSS

Thanks, I know from experience it can sometimes be stressful to work on controversial articles. Superm401 - Talk 04:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I am adding other sourced information for balance and then do not remove it, saying that we should take it to talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarila (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Indic Script

Hullo, May I know why is there a policy against Indic Script? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Solution for Indic Scripts = apply the same rules as for other scripts

Hullo, I read the different arguments for and against Indic Scripts and I can't see on what basis they reached a consensus, actually the discussion was closed without any true solution to the impeding problem

I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, so isn't there a way to re-open this issue and settle it? I've been on the wikipedia page of Ada Yonath, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and guess what? The name is also in Hebrew, normal as she is Israeli but her ancestors came from Poland, so her native language was more probably Polish or even Yiddish than Hebrew

Still, the reason why Hebrew was chosen is simple, she was in a country where Hebrew is the official language but Arabic is an official language of Israel too, still, they picked Hebrew because she is Jewish and not from a Muslim Background

So for all Indian born individuals, the name should be in Hindi and Devanagari script as the Indian Constitution recognises it and English as the two official languages, and in addition say for someone like Modi, as he is culturally Gujarati, it is befitting to have his name in that language too

What do you say about that?

I can't understand this plain discrimination against Indic script when the same isn't done for others, King Abdullah II of Jordan has his name in arabic too, so why these double standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manish2542: Personally, I agree with you, after looking up the treatment of other languages, although my instinct would be to say that no language should be present in the lead, since it creates clutter. However, I am not a very senior editor, so I am unsure how to change this. I would imagine an appropriate thing to do would be to post on the talk page for India related issues, and also perhaps start an RfC on a popular page (like the Modi page). But, I would first ask a more senior editor for advice. Indopug may have some thoughts on the subject. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Manish2542: I've never participated in a official discussion regarding this, but I have a couple of reasons why I fully support the INDICSCRIPT policy. Firstly, I generally do not think foreign-language scripts (no matter what the language—Arabic, Hindi or Hebrew) have any place in the lead. A large majority of English-language readers can't read them, and those who can, what do they gain anyway? So I think no-scripts policy should apply to all articles.

Secondly, the situation becomes particularly awful for India-related articles, due to the diversity of languages. For eg, see how the first line of the Ganges was a while back. How does that help anybody's understanding of the river?—indopug (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As for creating a broader discussion, start a thread at WT:INDIA. But do search the archives, because it is a topic that keeps coming up.—indopug (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend. Just to be clear, I was not so much expressing support for changing the policy, as for making it consistent; sure, Indian languages are diverse, but so are a lot of others. I was suggesting possible avenues to look at this, but I do not have the time or energy to invest substantially in the process. @Manish2542:, I hope that helps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have filed ani request here [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.39.62 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Vanamonde93! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 06:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nellie_massacre

Hi again :) Included the source regarding the target for 1983. Let me know if you have any concern. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

good to see we were able to resolve this. During our discussion you got me thinking with you point "it is not specified when the migrated". Appreciate working with you. Thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Restoring deletion proposal

In this edit you restored a deletion proposal (PROD) which had been removed by the editor who created the article. However, PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. If anyone removes a PROD, it is not uncontroversial, so the PROD must not be removed, except under circumstances where the removal was clearly not intended as contesting the deletion. If you think the article should be deleted, you will have to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, unless you think one of the speedy deletion criteria applies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:I am aware that PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. My edit was not so much returning the tag as reverting seeming vandalism; the only reason I tagged it "good faith" was because it did not contain profanity. In retrospect, I should have tagged it as vandalism. I interpreted the PROD guidelines to exclude removals by vandals, and so restored the tag. Is that an incorrect interpretation? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is, in my opinion, very unclear on this. It says "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith", but then goes on to say "This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism". I am not sure how removing a tag in bad faith differs from removing it as vandalism, nor am I sure how being vandalism precludes being an objection to deletion: it is perahps not a good faith objection to deletion, but presumably it is an attempt to stop deletion. However, the fact that you explicitly stated in your edit summary that you regarded the edit you reverted as being made in good faith stopped me even considering the vandalism issue: if you thought it was good faith, you cannot have thought that it was vandalism that you were reverting. Looking at it now, I don't think that it was vandalism. A Google search for "The tip of that juuuuuuust got me" led me to the same YouTube video clip that is linked from the article, I have found a blog which mentions the expression "The tip of that just got me" in connection with Shawn Leflar, and the nickname was included in earlier versions of the Wikipedia article, so it is likely that the edit wa made in good faith, even if inappropriately.

Having said all that, I have looked back at the article, and I see that right from the first version of the article, created over eight years ago, the article has stated that he is most notable for appearing in a video clip. I do not see that as a claim of importance or significance, and adding to that the fact that there has never been any source cited (if we don't count the link to YouTube), I see the article as qualifying for deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7, so I shall delete it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks for such a detailed response! I guess the lesson for me is to be a little more careful with my edit summaries when using Stiki, and also dig deeper into what may seem to be borderline vandalism cases. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never used Stiki, but I used to make a lot of use of Huggle, and I think the same principles apply. Such tools are really useful, and can make it possible to deal with a lot more vandalism than would be possible in the same time manually, but they have to be used with care. Except in absolutely blatant cases, I used to do some manual checking before clicking on the button to revert and warn. Apart from avoiding false positives and the like, doing so also frequently enabled me to find further vandalism, eitehr from the same editor or from other editors on the same page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Salvador

What is your background in Salvadoran politics? Duarte and Ungo (who was political spokesperson for the Salvadoran rebel anti-junta) were friends. Duarte may have been ineffectual, but people reading the reverted post would think he was part of the junta, rather than the popularly elected San Salvador mayor who cooperated when they overthrew him and Ungo. I have read Chomsky but he was not an expert on El Salvador. Jimmy Carter also continued to back Duarte after Reagan was elected.

Do you know something more than I know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroworks (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Retroworks: Please see the article talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

AVFM Comment

I'm just curious as to how there would be OR issues when using a video as opposed to another source. I can see the possibility since a video segment usually have less information than written text, but I don't see that as something obviously given. I'm asking here since I don't want to go too off-topic on the article talkpage. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: As I see it, OR is an issue with using any primary source. It's more of a problem here, because it is unlikely that a video of a talk has a summary at the beginning. If there is no summary, then we have to create one, and in a topic as fraught as the one under discussion, it would create OR issues, unless we were to use direct quotes. If we did use direct quotes, then who is to say which quotes are significant and which not? If we were discussing a scientific lecture, say, then it would be a very different situation, because there is so little room for interpretation. In the AVFM case, it's all about the interpretation, which is kind of why we need secondary sources. I wasn't so much discussing Youtube in geenral as youtube in that specific case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Hi, yes I tried, but unable to do that, as i know Mikaal Zulfiqar since my early Showbiz age... I still dont know how to update his profile as i am not sure his year of Birth, or maybe i am allowed to do that??? Kindly tell me how you can help me as im newer here??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B751936 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

u have been very helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.138.200 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey and Godhra accident theory

Re your recent revert of the "2002 Gujarat riots" page, the problem with the sentence is that it makes a bold statement saying "several independent commentators" have proposed the accident theory of Godhra train burning incident. Jeffrey is cited as a source, but he is not proposing the accident theory nor claiming proposals by other independent commentators. So, this is misleading. Better to split the sentence into two, and give separate sources for each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have checked, Barbara Metcalf is not proposing the accident theory either. Uday Reddy (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Reddyuday: I'm going to respond on the Godhra Train Burning talk, so as to keep the discussion in one place; it will quickly get too confusing otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Marathas rose after the Mughal and The British rose after the Marathas

I referred to the wiki article for going through the references and citations, not to follow what is written there. You will find scores of references and citations in support.

Sources:- (Check the Maratha Empire Section there. By the way, you will get them all with links in “Maratha Empire” wiki page “note” section.)

1)The New Cambridge Modern History(G.R. Potter) – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 12 July 2013. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1BY9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA556&dq=maratha+chauth+from+oudh,bihar&hl=en&ei=b30mTpvkMcS4rAfezomRCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved

2)The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Maratha supremacy(R.C. Majumder) http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=xywpTvOTGofirAf40eTsBg&ct=result&id=zQ9uAAAAMAAJ&dq

3) Shivaji, the great Maratha, Volume 2, H. S. Sardesai, Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd, 2002, ISBN 81-7755-286-4, ISBN 978-81-7755-286-7

4)The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent Cite: "Swarming up from the Himalayas, the Marathas now ruled from the Indus and Himalayas in the north to the south tip of the peninsula. They were either masters directly or they took tribute."

5) History of the Marathas – R.S. Chaurasia – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 26 May 2012.

6) History of Midieval India – Saini A.K, Chand, Hukam – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 17 September 2012.

7) Mehta, J. L. Advanced study in the history of modern India 1707–1813

8) Mackenna, P. J. et al. Ancient and modern India

9) J. L. Mehta (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India: Volume One: 1707 – 1813. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 707–. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6. – It explains the rise to power of his Peshwa (prime minister) Buluji Vishwanath (171 3–20) and the transformation of the Maratha kingdom into a vast empire, by the collective action of all the Maratha stalwarts.

If you provide a book as a source, then you need to provide page numbers in every case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Pages with links are available in the reference or citation or Note section of Maratha Empire. Please do visit. I can not copy & paste every thing. By the way i will wait for your response for a day and then I will again edit it if you do not have any problem. I hope you will certainly have not. Thanks. Please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alan Moore

The source is Alan Moore's film. The YouTube account is not the film's "source".91.122.6.3 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

-

Hello :) I edited the page of the script and you told me that, because I did not give any reliable sources, you removed it. I Apologize, as I am new to this and forgot to did it, as it was my very first edit. I, again, added the change, this time with the sources. I hope I did not give you the wrong impression, that I was just writing false information, because I wasn't, especially about The Script, a group of people I admire the most in the world. I thank you for telling me to add the sources, and giving me another chance to edit the page.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BismaZafar (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reason for the edit of Mmm Yeah and Nickelodeon.

Hello Vanamonde93. I am thomaslindiv. The reason I edited the articles was because I saw it in a commercial. If you seen the commercial, then leave the articles alone. If you do this one more time, I will tell a spambot. Thanks, Thomaslindiv (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC) thomaslindiv. P.S. I did not know how to add references. Now I know. I will give you the reference when we talk again. P.P.S. Remind me about that.

Hey

YGM Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You got more mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And another. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I've replied. You may want to take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I miss-interpreted the reference the first time, I have responded on the talk page.

--Jyoti (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a reliable resource

I am a Race car driver and just returned from three days at VIR June 24-26 2014. I have driven many laps around this course and can definitively say that the Oak Tree has been removed from corner 12. As to the corner numbering you only have to look at the full course map that you have provided in the upper right hand corner of the page. I made a correct update regarding the Oak Tree and corrected an error in the corner's number. I am only trying to help. I had a photographer take pictures while I was driving and when they are available, if one is pertinent I will supply it.

Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobrienmx (talk • contribs) 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cobrienmx, I appreciate the fact that your racing experience makes you interested and perhaps competent to edit this topic. Unfortunately, your own personal experience does not qualify as a reliable source; what you need is an external source, ideally secondary, that meets the norms mentioned in our policy. Since you are a race driver, it should not be difficult for you to find such; a racing magazine perhaps? I hope that helps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Project update

Regarding this discussion, I created a watchlist so we can get a good look at the current project activity. Here's the last 250 edits. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

PHaradise

Hello Vanamonda93

You wrote me which my page PHaradise did not have verifiable content, so I put some links to newspaper and video... both deleted! It so difficult to write about an Art Work? What I have to do then? Thanks

AlpHaTalie

Replied on your talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley_High_School?

There was already an external link to US News & World Report, but it pointed to a 404 page not found. I fixed the link to point to the correct page for the school. IF that's promotional, then why was the link there at all?

Los Angeles Film School

As explained, the sources quoted where blogs that led to broken links: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101209/film_nm/us_school/ and a source that said a lawsuit was 'proposed". If you would like for this content to remain, please provide a credible source for an actual class action lawsuit.

Furthermore, the statement that the school lost its accreditation status is false. This statement shows malicious intent and has directly negatively impacted the reputation of the college. A source and phone number have been provided in order to verify whether Los Angeles Film School had their accreditation revoked. It is the same source that the original author used to state the contrary.

Please verify information for accuracy prior to posting / deleting.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MicheleWiki (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refer directly to the accrediting body ACCET: both on their cite and via direct phone call: ACCET never revoked accreditation. That is a reference directly from the source.

the other direct reference is from the ACCSC accrediting body, which I provided (again, a direct source) and which you removed for no reason cited.... you did that twice. Other than citing direct sources (the actual accrediting organizations) what more can one do to prove accuracy? By the way, I have never been affiliated with Los Angeles Film School. I had been promoting mis-information on this Wiki page and now I am trying to set the record straight to remedy the problems this mis-information has created.

In order for Wiki to remain a credible source, it is imperative that factual information is provided. If LAFS lost accreditation of any sort, please provide a link that is verifiable. At present, the accrediting bodies directly refute what is stated on this page. I have tried to set the record straight, only to have my sources deleted without cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MicheleWiki (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)