User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Mundo Reader

Hello, Vanamonde93, I think the speedy deletion of Mundo Reader was an error. I would like to ask for it's undeletion and for a regular deletion procedure. Or at least for making a copy in my user pages, so I can keep working on it. Thank you. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Ark25. I agree that the motivations of the person who tagged it may be suspect. That said, when I evaluate a CSD, I judge the article, not the person tagging it: and to me this article was highly promotional when I deleted it, intentionally or not. For example, it contained long lists of products and such, that were often unsourced, and I suspect that if it were restored it would be tagged again quickly. So I've moved it into your userspace, at User:Ark25/Mundo Reader. You may work on it at your leisure, but before moving it back please try to address the issue of promotional content. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Who knows, maybe it was one of their competitor that wanted their article deleted :)

I had no intention to blame you at all, unfortunately the passion that we invest in building Wikipedia becomes anger too easily when we notice that our work was deleted, and then we blame the administrators too easily. The admins are doing a great job, even if they make errors. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, being a little bitter is understandable, so thanks for taking a constructive attitude. Vanamonde (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Shahaf Shabtai

Dear member,

You have deleted our shef page.

Can you explain what we need to remove in order for the page and our shef shahf shabtai resume will be entered to wikiprdia.

Please note that mister shabtai is a michlen winner shef that deserev a wiki value.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

Nati

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmalka (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nmalka: What is required is for the page to be written in a manner that is not promotional. Unfortunately, you have expressed a desire to have a resume on Wikipedia, and a resume is by definition a promotional document. So, unfortunately, there is not really a way for you to have a resume here. I would suggest reading WP:NPOV and WP:COI for further information. Vanamonde (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion - Armando Codina

Hi Vanamonde93,

I noticed that you deleted a page on January 11th for Armando Codina. Can you please let me know why? You state that it was unsourced, can you undo this change and I'll add the sources to it?

Thank you for your time.

Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngieSB (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@AngieSB: The issue is that the page was a violation of our policy about biographies of living people. Any such page needs to have all its information supported by reliable sources. For that reason, I cannot simply restore the page. I have moved it to User:AngieSB/Armando Codina, where you may work on sourcing it; however, please do not move it back without addressing this issue. Also, please be aware of WP:NOTPROMO, which this version comes close to violating. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Help: Moving page

Can you move GMA Network (company) to GMA Network?, because GMA Network channel been moved to this page GMA Network (TV channel).Kaponohillen (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kaponohillen: The move you are suggesting seems to be the correct one, but there is a substantive page history in both places, and the issues of preserving/merging page history are not ones I am very comfortable with, so I am not going to perform this move. May I point you to WP:RM, where more knowledgeable folks may help you out? Vanamonde (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FIITJEE

The consensus at Wp:Articles for deletion/FIITJEE was that it is notable. G11 deletion is invalid. Quoth WP:CSD: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below.". Please restore. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes, the last AfD was closed "keep"; but it was in 2009, and (I don't think you can see this part) it has since been deleted a number of times, and restored a couple of times: and the version that I deleted was most certainly a violation of WP:NOTPROMO. As such I'm not going to restore it as is and leave it at that. If you were willing to work on a draft, I could provide you with such. Vanamonde (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

After the afd closure in 2009, the page has never been rightly deleted. There were a couple of erroneous deletions that were reversed later. The AFD consensus in keeping the article was quite firm. You cannot override that. The state of the version u deleted does not matter. Per WP:CSD, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible." So you have to undelete and revert the page back to the last valid revison. If you want it deleted, you are free to file a new AfD. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello? WP:ADMINACCT requires you to respond to the above. You are accountable for all admin actions. 103.6.159.88 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

About article Shivkrupanand Swami

Hi there ! I have updated article Shivkrupanand Swami which was reviewed by you on 8th January, 2017. Please check the same in Udtrivedi/Shivkrupanand Swami. Please suggset if I need to change it further or it is fine. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udtrivedi (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid the draft does not meet our standards. There are a few issues with it, the most important of which is that it is not based on reliable sources, which is absolutely essential. As a result, it fails our policy on verifiability. It also relies on sources not independent of the subject, which makes the page fail WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO. If you moved this into mainspace, it would be deleted quickly. Please read the links I just posted, and edit accordingly. Vanamonde (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Czech Republic

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Czech Republic. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Narendra Modi

The article Narendra Modi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Narendra Modi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack?

User talk:103.6.159.76 This IP editor believes that he can call me jerk twice and it's correct. I struck an entire keep vote as the editor voted twice. The IP could have reverted my edit instead of calling me "jerk". --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: The IP's behavior is certainly sub-par, but is not quite at a level at which they can be sanctioned, and is best ignored. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

The same for addition unsourced final dates is happening to this page as well, with vandalism attached, and there is a FLC going on. MCMLXXXIX 10:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Semi'd for a week. Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor with competence issues

Do you agree with this, Vanamonde? These net negatives make me tired. I didn't even see any point in giving them a discretionary sanctions alert. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, I do. This user is most certainly a net negative. The edits to Asaram worry me: the large number of creations of non-notable puff-pieces worry me more, and suggest that the editor is here with a decided agenda, and with a lack of competence to boot. I was tempted to give them a formal warning when I reverted them earlier this morning, but I'd started by reverting them on a page I'm heavily involved on, so I could not really put on the admin hat with them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So, they've replied to me... it's a little unclear, but I think it's a threat to make sure all Wikipedia is deleted if we continue to spread immoral thoughts. Normally I don't block people for stuff they say on their talk, but it just illustrates that there's no point in dragging this out. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: yeah just saw that. Somewhat amusing, but also indicatesomewhat serious competence issues...indefing would seem appropiate. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 17:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evolution of snake venom

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Evolution of snake venom you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Greetings,

I would like to know why you deleted my page? The name of the page was "Lukay" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20170201000000&limit=500&type=delete&user=Vanamonde93&page=&tagfilter=&subtype=&month=1&year=2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukaymusic (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it was judged to be promotional in nature. Also, judging from your username, you have a conflict of interest with respect to this person, and so please read the linked guideline before proceeding with any edits you plan to perform. Vanamonde (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with difficult editor

Hey, Thanks for your help with Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III articles. I am a bit worried about the editor who uses multiple unregistered IP's (103.27.220.21, 27.100.20.252, 43.249.129.233, 103.17.198.244, 43.249.131.132). I think this is the same user because he uses the same references and keeps arguing the same point. These edits have been reverted by multiple editors([1],[2]) for lack of credible references and multiple attempts to get the user to discuss on the Talk page have failed. The user has not been very civil either in the RfC. Last, the user has also indulged in personal attacks on me ([3]). Any help or advice on how to deal with the user will be much appreciated. Also, will the decision of this RfC be binding on all articles related i.e. Brahmos, Hsiung Feng III and List_of_surface-to-air_missiles#Taiwan. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Okay, I took a look at this situation, and unfortunately there is no magic bullet here. The IP's behavior is not ideal, but it is not completely out of order, and I cannot semi-protect the article under the circumstances. If the edit-warring resumes again I will extend full-protection (or you can post at RFPP again); but the other editors are not entirely justified in performing any number of reverts, as disputes about sources and such are not an exception to the 3RR rule. I will leave a more generic note about edit-warring, sources, and civility on the talk page. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde Thanks for your note on the page and I think that it was very helpful. The point I was trying to make earlier is that none of the other editors(except the one mentioned above) actually violated the 3RR rule since most of them(including me did not revert the edit 3 times in the same day). The editor in question is who I suspect of violating the 3RR rule via multiple IP's(assuming he/she is the same person). Please take a look at the revision history of Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III for confirmation. I believe he has reverted 4 times on Brahmos on 1 February 2017. Lastly, how do we reach the conclusion for an RfC where the editor has not provided any sources(contrary to the one of the manufacturer) but is building on speculation and conspiracy theories. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Vanamonde, thanks for helping out on Talk:Hsiung Feng III, among many other places. As the RfC is drawing to a close, editors are pointing out that similar behaviour to that exhibited by the IPs Adamgerber80 has pointed out is happening to other related articles, and that those articles along with Hsiung Feng III should be semi-protected. Thoughts? Blurp92 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more IP's to add to that list, 49.77.132.106, 45.120.200.30, 45.120.201.201, 103.27.220.21, 45.120.200.30. And possibly 2 more articles Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction and Brain size.

I'm afraid there is not much to be done here. There is not sufficient disruption on the Taiwan page to protect it: the Brain size page has a content dispute that I have now participated in, but even if the IP is being problematic, we cannot simply lock them out (yet). And the range is too wide to block, in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde, L3X1, Blurp92 I think we have sufficient disruption in atleast the first 3 pages I mentioned on the RfC to semi-protect them for a short term of time. I will monitor the Taiwan page for the near future. Also, I believe there is a case of SOCK now where the editor claims that all these IP's in fact are not same person but different editors. Here are more IP's to add to the list 103.27.221.123, 103.17.199.211. I did a bit more digging and these IP's are indeed from different countries but they all belong to the same ISP, Powerhouse Management INC([4]). So we can say with some confidence based on the pattern of arguments, language and direction of argument that this is indeed a single person. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun, alright? None of those pages have been edited in the last couple of days, and as I have said before, semi-protection cannot be used in a content dispute. At this moment, I am unwilling to protect any of those pages. If you disagree with my decision, you are welcome to post to RFPP, but the decision is unlikely to be different. If the situation changes, ie the IP editor ignores the RFC and resumes edit-warring, I might change my mind. 13:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I will abide by your decision. Just FYI, the reason none of these pages have been edited has been because 2 of them are fully protected and third one has incorrect info(added by the IP) which we did not edit waiting for the RfC to close. Can we go ahead and remove the incorrect info from these pages once the RfC is closed? Also, will you please unprotect these pages so we can make them RfC compliant. Lastly, the IP's was because some editors involved in the RfC think that there is a strong case of SOCK going on and I wanted your opinion on a SPI. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The pages will be unprotected automatically soon, but you should wait for the RFC to be closed before doing anything, ideally. I wouldn't bother with an SPI. It seems fairly clear that this is a single person: but unless there is very clear evidence that they are pretending to be multiple people, there isn't much point in filing an SPI. Even in that case, all an SPI would do is to make things a little easier in the future when you can say "This is a sock: look at this SPI". SPIs are usually used to tie registered accounts together on the basis of shared IPs and such: in this case that is not relevant, and the IP is able to hop, which makes blocking useless, too. Try to reach consensus. Let's take it from there. Vanamonde (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it seems fairly clear that this is a single person but the editor claims otherwise. Quoting the editor when another editor brought up SOCKS was "You and I both can see very clearly that the IP addresses come from different editors from several different countries. Yeah, so I'll fly to Japan today and tommorrow I'll go to Australia and the day after I'll fly back to Alabama, USA, get real brah! You should speak for yourself before pointing fingers and making false accusations!". Anyways if you think we should not pursue an investigation so be it. But I wanted it on record that an editor from these IP's did try to SOCK the discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

After doing a bit of digging, I found out the reason why Geolocate puts the IPs all over the place: Powerhouse Management isn't an ISP; It's a VPN, with 700+ servers across 70+ countries on 5 continents and, get this, over 200,000 IPs. From what I can gather, a user can switch between their servers as many times as they want, which explains a lot. Blurp92 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd gathered as much: which is why an SPI is mostly pointless. The only purpose it can serve is that of documentation. Anyhow, there's not much points discussing hypotheticals here anymore: try to reach consensus, like I said, and take it from there. If the IP ignores consensus and resumes edit-warring, semi-protection for disruptive editing becomes an option. Vanamonde (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'll keep a close eye on the page once the full protection expires. If consensus is ignored once again, well, you know what'll happen next. Blurp92 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP hopper is back and disrupting at-least 3 articles. I have requested SEMI for Brahmos and Hsiung Feng III where there have been 2 disruptions. Any help or advice is much appreciated. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected both those pages; enough is enough. Vanamonde (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is another page Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Two more pages Brain size Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction. 1 which is covered by the RfC and one is on a unrelated topic. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 (talk) please refrain from academic dishonesty. This information has been here on this article for a very very long time due to both consensus and reputable sources from China News, please refrain from you disruptive edits. The article originally stated for a very long time that "ROC successfully conducted its diminutive nuclear test in southern Taiwan in the 1980s." China News is indisputably a reputable source, please read: http://www.chinanews.com/2000-1-7/26/14868.html 27.100.20.36 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The two pages that I could have protected, I've protected already; the third dispute I'm a little too close to to protect. Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and I got them protected via RFP. Here are some other list of pages which I believe are under disruptive editing by the same editor.List of human spaceflight programs, National Space Organization, National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Stealth ship, Hypersonic speed. They show the same pattern of POV pushing and persistent editing without building consensus from an IP hopper. I am not sure what we can do about this or know the extent of disruption on other wiki pages. Just wanted to let you know. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Vanamonde, The same user is back editing on Human spaceflight. He has added the same information again which was removed last time for lack of references. Here is the diff ([5]). Users, merlinVtwelve and me have refrained from reverting these edits for now since the IP editor tends to stalk other editors. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've applied pending changes to that page, which is all that is justified at the moment, in my opinion. If the editor returns, we may have to upgrade. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. This seems to be part of a larger systematic effort, although I'm not sure how many users are involved and how they are related (if more than one). There is a cluster of spaceflight-related articles where various IPs consistently try to make the Taiwanese space program look good with a combination of:

• Writing claims with references, but the given references do not discuss the claims at all.
• Misleading links, giving the impression would have articles like Taiwanese manned spaceflight program or Taiwanese astronauts where the actual link goes to some other article.
• NPOV violations like "a cutting edge advanced Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) autonomous lunar lander". Example for all three points
• Not sure if related: Making politically loaded and wrong statements (single instance in 2005, but at least the IP user didn't change it while working on the article)
• Adding tons of links from and to the articles in "see also", probably to promote visibility of the articles. Example
• Namedropping. Example

We have that pattern in National Space Organization, List of human spaceflight programs, Human spaceflight, Lunar lander, National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction, Hsiung Feng III, Tuo Chiang-class corvette, BrahMos, Brain size (connection) and potentially articles I missed. We have a few IPs doing hundreds of edits in Nuclear power in Taiwan (still needs cleanup), Energy in Taiwan (also needs cleanup), various institutions 1 (when does that person sleep?) and various institutions 2 (not sure if all got reverted), more similar edits in 2013, ... The IPs ignore RfC results, they ignore reverts, they just put their material in again a few days after they get reverted. Just based on the edit patterns, the "see also/energy" IPs could be a different user from the spaceflight articles. --mfb (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is still active, recently Floquenbeam protected various pages, see his discussion page. Linked here to find the most recent discussion. --mfb (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mfb, but I'm afraid there's not much I can do besides protecting pages as and when it becomes necessary. Do you know of any such? Also, I'm likely to be offline a fair bit over the next 48 hours or so, so bear that in mind: RFPP might well be quicker. Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

BrahMos had an IP edit today, Lunar lander had an IP edit on Friday, Human spaceflight, Wan Chien, Nuclear power in Taiwan, Energy in Taiwan are also unprotected (or with protection ending today) and with IP vandalism within the last few days. There is rarely an active edit war, just very persistent edits. --mfb (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've applied a few protections, but I cannot really justify extending the protection on a page that has a shortly-expiring protection. Let me know if new things crop up; or if it's in the next two days, RFPP is your best bet. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm preparing a page to better keep track of the articles affected. --mfb (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cladogram

• Since you're busy IRL, would it be helpful if I put a snake cladogram into the article and had a go at marking up events from the text? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Chiswick Chap: It would be hugely helpful, especially because I've never made a cladogram before, whereas I think you've done it a number of times. The only question is whether we want to create a simple cladogram showing the single-origin hypothesis, or a slightly more complex one describing venom recruitment events, which would then have to be based on a specific cladogram from some paper or another; which would involve searching through those sources; which I will only have time for Wednesday onwards. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'll think which is best - maybe both, of course. The single one is easy, I'm just cutting down the one from Squamata to show what we need. The same may well do as the basis for the multi-origin one, as the serpent phylogeny stays the same, we just add markers to it (maybe just text, maybe an icon actually, hmmm...) to show where/when "events" happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Whoa, Chiswick Chap, that's quite a nice cladogram you've made there, many thanks! I'll see if I can do a simpler one for protein recruitment events, though I might need assistance with adding labels for along a branch, rather than at the end. Vanamonde (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks! There's no convenient way of adding much of a label along a branch, as each character of text makes the whole tree stretch further over to the right - you can see the effect if you examine the "single" marker at the base of the tree. I suggest you add labels marked [A], [B], .... and then explain them with a key underneath the cladogram. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, Chiswick Chap, I've made a cladogram for the venom recruitment events, mostly by adapting yours. Couple of issues that we may have to figure out. First, Fry et al have a reptile phylogeny slightly different from the one you added. Second, aesthetically, is there a way to make the thing central on the page? Finally, the phylogeny I adapted this from is ridiculously complex (happy to send you a copy if you want); so I've left out a number of events, just tried to get the major ones down. Are you okay with this, or would you like a little more detail? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great! I can hear a learning curve being traversed! We can't say everything in an introductory article, our job for GA is "the main points", which the cladogram undoubtedly covers. I guess you should remove my cladogram? But I think you lost your "[B]" label somehow. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Hah, yes indeed. I've fixed the missing label, and I'll deal with the rest of the points you've raised shortly. I'm not certain about removing your cladogram; I think it does provide a little bit of new information, but it is also a little repetitive. I'll leave that up to you. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evolution of snake venom

The article Evolution of snake venom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Evolution of snake venom for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar!

	Special Snakemouth BarnStar
	For several years of fine work on Evolution of snake venom. I guess this star-shaped orchid does look quite like a snake's mouth on a good day. Great work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, it does indeed, thanks Chiswick Chap. :) Vanamonde (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes protection on Unturned

G'day,

Just letting you know that for whatever reason, my additions aren't auto accepted to the Unturned page regardless of the fact I'm both Autoconfirmed and Extended Confirmed.

Cheers, — IVORK _Discuss 21:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@IVORK: To be quite honest, I have no idea why this might have happened. I can verify your user rights, so this must be a bug of some sort. Funny thing, though, I also noticed this happening with an edit by Utcursch, who is an administrator, and so certainly holds the required permissions: but I had to manually accept his edit(see here). Utcursch, any ideas? Stalkers, any thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea. Maybe WP:VPT can help. utcursch | talk 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden Finale confirmed

Here is the source link from Anime News Network which will confirm Episode 500 is the final episode http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-03-23/naruto-shippuden-anime-ending-on-500th-episode-confirmed/.113787 67.171.250.202 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with me: if this is part of a content dispute, please post it on the talk page of the article in question. Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history

You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services

You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What Cheer? Brigade

Strange edits to What Cheer? Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by an anon and new editor Brassfan02909 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims "danger". Also, this message on my talk page. What do you make of it? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: TBH I'm quite as baffled as you seem to be. I do not see how being listed as a member of a band can be a threat to somebody's safety. You did the right thing in asking them to contact OTRS. I think the logical followup would be to leave it be for a couple of days, ask them whether they have, in fact, talked to OTRS, and if they say no/don't respond, then to reinstate the edit. I notice that the content that was removed didn't have a source, though, which is a BLP problem; so any reinstatement should include a source. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Especially since goggling "What Cheer? Brigade members" gives a long list which does not seem to correlate with the Wiki article. I'll put it on my do list. Thanks for your observation. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: The google list you see when you search for "What Cheer? Brigade members" comes from our website. This information is no longer available. I see you've added the members list back. Why not follow :@Vanamonde93:'s suggestion and allow us to leave this list down for the time being. If you absolutely must reinstate it yourself, please include sources. Our website is the only official source of current members (we haven't updated it anytime recently, other than to remove the members list), and the cached list provided by google is out of date and will soon disappear. Again, please allow us to remove our members list for now, as there are no sources, and this information puts our members at risk. Happy to review again in a week. Brassfan02909 (talk)

@Jim1138: Until you are able to provide verifiable/official sources for the current list of members list will you please remove the content in question? Even if only for a week... If you need proof that I am a member of the band I can email you from the official band email address. Wikipedia protocol suggests reaching out to other admins when there is a dispute. You did this and then ignored the other admins advice to leave the content for a few days, and reinstate it only when there is a verifiable source for the information. What more do you need from me? I can prove unequivocally that I am a member of the band, and that the information on the wikipedia article as it currently stands is inaccurate. On top of that it poses a safety threat to the 18+ members of the band. Not allowing me to take this information down for a week is putting all of our safety at risk. Please let us take this down, and touch base again in a week. Brassfan02909 (talk)

@Brassfan02909: I asked Jim to give you some time, but the fact remains that you cannot simply remove content without sufficient explanation. If there is a safety issue, you should explain what it is; if it is too serious to describe on Wikipedia, you should contact OTRS, and see what they say. If you are unwilling to describe the issue to them, they will presumably point you to the WMF legal team, and if you're unwilling to talk to them, then you just have to live with the content you don't like. My advice to Jim was to give you time to take these steps, not to allow the removal to persist without reason. So please explain, or contact OTRS immediately. Vanamonde (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138:@Vanamonde93: I propose that the content be removed for 24 hours under emergency circumstances. I am contacting OTRs now. Timing is critical for this issue. I am new to the Wikipedia process but am doing my best to protect my bandmates and comply with Wikipedia protocol. Allowing the content to be removed for 24 hours while I await a response from OTRs sounds like a reasonable compromise. Brassfan02909 (talk)

If you have contacted OTRS, I think it is reasonable for the content to be removed for 24 hours. Vanamonde (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Appears to have been taken care of - lots of revdel. Gold lock for ten days, so it's out of my hands. See response on User talk:Brassfan02909. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Request restore deleted page Coinsecure.

Article literally rests on one-line mention in Economic Times  ?? Plenty of articles from reputed News publishers. Please check. https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=coinsecure&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m

Droidmaxxx (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Droidmaxxx: The provided PROD rationale was quite valid, in that the article did not demonstrate notability. If you have found sources, there aren't any problems with you recreating the article, which I see that you have done. There isn't anything for me to restore. Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It's been taken down again. It's one of my earliest contributions on Wiki please help if you can. I've researched and added valid content. Droidmaxxx (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

For my own reference, editor indeffed for spamming. Vanamonde (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation PBHISTORY

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation PBHISTORY you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

	Guatemalan Star
	Congratulations on getting 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état to FA - it was a long haul but you got there in the end! All the best, and thank you for your work on this important Guatemalan topic, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Simon, for the barnstar as well as your thorough reviews, without which the article wouldn't have gotten where it did. It was a lot of work, so it's nice to be appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Amazing! Congratulations, Van. Phenomenal work! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at Talk:Operation PBHISTORY/GA1.
Message added 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Arbenz 1945.jpg is lacking the US public domain tag in its file. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am giving the article a final proofreading-readthrough but so far the only major issue is that a US public domain tag needs to be added to the image-file. Shearonink (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Itskumudhk

It's very likely that this user has created a sock just hours after you blocked them. Sock contributions are to the very same pages and of the same pattern. I've filed an SPI on this issue. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: On the face of it, yes, this is a sock. When I look at the page history, though, there is a lot of messy stuff: several IPs, apparently unrelated, and multiple accounts adding similar information. So let the SPI run, and see what a checkuser finds. If they created one sock, they probably created more. Vanamonde (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at Talk:Operation PBHISTORY/GA1.
Message added 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think the second sentence in the lead needs to be adjusted for clarity. However you wish to do that is up to you - maybe editing the first two sentences into three? (or whatever). Please ping me when you've been able to take a look at it & c/e etc. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Spicer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Spicer. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation PBHISTORY

The article Operation PBHISTORY you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation PBHISTORY for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation PBHISTORY

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Shearonink! Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 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) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext

I got pinged by this user. I didn't interact with him too much as he says. Perhaps he didn't like my delete vote in one AFD. @Thryduulf I have not claimed that OZ was AP or Ekvastra. I have claimed that AP is connected and was admittedly a meat-puppet of OZ (diff provided earlier) and OZ friendly editors eg. User:D4iNa4, User:Capitals00, User:Marvellous_Spider-Man have continued to edit colllusively and abusively as meatpuppets to harass me. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: This is best ignored. You know as well as I do that Inlinetext is not the first to feel suspicious about that set of accounts, including yours. Far more experienced editors than him, including me, have noticed the overlap in the interaction. Vanamonde (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext has "noticed" nothing, he is just trolling because he is repeating the refuted claims he read on different SPIs and he goes ahead to make up his own gibberish by connecting these accounts including mine with some former admin and alleged paid editors, thats nothing more than trolling and WP:ALLSOCKS. You can say its his modus operandi.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#User:Inlinetext] D4iNa4 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Rangers

Could I please ask under which rationale the article was deleted, as this is part of a bigger issue of amateur articles having insufficient notability criteria defined, with soccer clubs in tier 9, local rugby clubs, village cricket teams, tier 6 rugby league clubs all put up for deletion and no consistency or deeper analysis or roadmap put forwards by those seeking to delete. Seems very harsh to delete some and save others.Fleets (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fleets: The article was deleted because I judged that there was consensus at the deletion discussion that it did not meet our standards for notability. Essentially, those arguing to keep the article need to show how the subject is notable, preferably through providing coverage in multiple reliable sources. This was not done. No other compelling argument was provided, either. I suggest you go back to the discussion, and read the policies/guidelines that folks linked to. As to other pages, see WP:OSE. If those are not notable, then they should be sent to AfD, too, but their existence is not a reason to keep this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I could understand that the article, being poorly sourced was a viable target for someone wanting to delete something. Having read the discussion, here and with other articles it has become apparent that the guidelines not have a good level of detail when applied to amateur sports clubs. My question, would be to you as the person who deleted it, what was the rationale as an article that it failed to meet as we have people asserting that the club itself was not eligible, regardless of the standard of the article. Elsewhere we have soccer clubs lower in the pyramid than this getting by, because of a consensus at Footy that it was notable, regardless of GNG or any other rationale. You see where I'm going that a tit-for-tat AFD may come about due to insufficient binding guidelines that fit for an amateur sports club. I am not volunteering to help, just volunteering that it has become a noticeable creep on previously fine articles.Fleets (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if this bothers you, this is a problem you need to raise at the relevant noticeboard; possibly at a project noticeboard for football. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Docherty

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Docherty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism...

This user - User_talk:2607:FEA8:569F:FABC:D69A:20FF:FE5F:486F is straight back to vandalism after numerous warnings, and two blocks in the last week. Might be time for a longer (ie: indefinite) blocking...

Chris Keating (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Docherty

The article Mary Docherty you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary Docherty for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mary Docherty

The article Mary Docherty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary Docherty for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note about a user blocked by you

Sorry for disturb. A user blocked 2 weeks by you is removing (1st and 2nd rollback) your notices. Btw, checking his contribs, it seems that this is a habit (some examples: 1st, 2nd, a block notice, another block notice etc). Speaking about the warning (and block) notices removed after the end of block, I've just reported the links because it is still unclear to me if the operation is possible (Maybe yes. In that case, sorry for the redundant kb added by me). Btw, the removal of notices during the block (as for the words of Davey2010) looks like forbidden, and so, a vandalism. Sorry for disturb, is just to notice the "case", because it seems you are following it. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

prophet bushiri

Hi vanamonde

I would like to know why you deleted, a page you wrote about prophet bushiri, I need to to write an article about him but soonly I discovered your wrote a page about him and you deleted……Major Rabotsokarika (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Major Rabotsokarika: Sorry, I honestly have no idea which page you are referring to. There never was a page called "prophet bushiri" on Wikipedia. Can you link to the title you want to know about? Vanamonde (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Profpremrajpushpakaran

Hi Vanamonde93, Could you revoke TP access for Profpremrajpushpakaran as they're constantly blanking their page whilst they're still blocked,
Not a major crime however it's still disruptive editing and as far as I know block templates must remain until the block expires,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and DerBorg: Yeah, I've been seeing that. As Davey says, it's not the biggest crime, but it is disruptive. I've told them that I will revoke access if they continue to remove the template, and I will follow through with that. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'm beginning to wonder if Indef is the best option but perhaps I'm being harsh, Anyway thanks for dealing with that, –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding comments of Mr. Manmohan Singh

I agree that in the article of 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation, the comment might not be appropriate in the lead section, but can you show me the location otherwise in the body of the article as you are saying it is mentioned? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai: I didn't say it was in the body. Those were separate statements. The stuff you removed as "unsourced" is sourced in the body, so I restored it. Manmohan Singh is undue weight for the lede, so I removed it. You could add it to the body, if it's not already there: I lose track of all the statements that have been stockpiled. Vanamonde (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Thanks a lot for your help and guidance. Thanks once again. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)