Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) →Hi: will look, but busy right now. |
→article refund request for Gerald Gurian: new section |
||
Line 332: | Line 332: | ||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745178520&oldid=745174600], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745158471&oldid=745154109], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745153386&oldid=745152781]. Here he even removes a comment from another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745147681&oldid=745146377].--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745178520&oldid=745174600], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745158471&oldid=745154109], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745153386&oldid=745152781]. Here he even removes a comment from another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&type=revision&diff=745147681&oldid=745146377].--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Rather busy in RL: might be a few hours before I can take a detailed look. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93#top|talk]]) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
::Rather busy in RL: might be a few hours before I can take a detailed look. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93#top|talk]]) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
== article refund request for Gerald Gurian == |
|||
Hi, could you please Userfy the deleted [[Gerald Gurian]] article to my Userspace (including its full edit history)? |
|||
Background: I participated in, and you were the closer of, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Gurian]]. I agree there was clear consensus that [[Gerald Gurian]] is not Wikipedia-notable if more sources are not found. However I would like access to try to use its material to add something to one or more of the many Star Trek-related list-articles. And it may turn out that "Gerald Gurian" would usefully be a redirect to an item there, and if a redirect is going to exist, I would want it to include its edit history, so if GG does become more clearly notable, it can be restored properly as an article. I want to work with the material, and have access to see who added what, anyhow. |
|||
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, [[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:23, 19 October 2016
Have a good day
Request retracted. Have a good day.ZoeyZoey Wipf (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Zoey Wipf (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Zoey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoey Wipf (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Request for advice/comments off-wiki
Hi there, I came across you by following the Talk pages of various articles on South Asian politics. From what I can see, you have been a veteran and extremely valuable contributor in this area. I am a new-ish wiki editor (who prefers to stay anon due to early experiences) and I wanted some advice on dipping my toes in South Asian topics - I tried once, in a relatively obscure article about a Marathi movie, and had to run for the hills! I am also a social science student and have been talking to wiki editors for my research, but mostly those who deal with science topics. I would really love to learn more about your experience with Wikipedia, and particularly editing these areas. IF you are willing, can you please email me at: thestudiousllama at gmail. I don't know how else to communicate with editors without creating an account myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.47.63 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi There. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. You need to have an account to use the "email this user" function, but the email I've linked to my account is vanamondec@gmail.com, which you are welcome to send any queries to. In general, though, I would recommend creating an account: there are several advantages to it, not the least of which is that you will be viewed with slightly less suspicion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Vanamonde93. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Your warning to me
Wow, Mar4d certainly has a whole crowd of friends to form a gang and bully anyone who crosses his path. Please take a deep breath, and a minute to read my message to two other users here. I only want to say the same thing to you also.
- I think @Mar4d: would be quite amused to hear me described as their "friend." The fact remains that the content you added was either unsourced, or sourced to a google-groups forum (or something). Those do not constitute reliable sources. Find such sources that support your content changes before trying to add the content again, else you are flirting with a WP:BLOCK. Vanamonde (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- You clearly have not read the article or the changes I made, therefore you are shooting in the dark "either this, or that, or something" ... be informed that I have not added much content in the first place. Mar4d is rubbing out whatever I have written for no reason except that he is following me around on all pages and rubbing out all my work. He started doing that after I removed the name of the so-called (unproven) "perpetrator" in the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings case, and as a Pakistani, he has an axe to grind there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.186.110 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation PBHISTORY, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Cissie Cahalan
On 28 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cissie Cahalan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Irish suffragette Cissie Cahalan argued against gender-segregated trade unions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cissie Cahalan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cissie Cahalan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK for A Wizard of Earthsea
On 29 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Wizard of Earthsea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that reviewers have commented on the similarities between the 1968 novel A Wizard of Earthsea and the Harry Potter series? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Wizard of Earthsea. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A Wizard of Earthsea), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 September 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit
- In the media: Wikipedia in the news
- Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content
- Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens
- Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét
- Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters
Kelsey grammer
Hello I've only added correct information. I haven't sworn or abused anyone. Keep getting bullied online. In regards to Kelsey's film if he only spoke about it in an interview how can I back up that information, Thanks Crescent15 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Crescent15: even if he only gave an interview about it, I am sure sources are available. Even poorly known movies have reviews somewhere, and if he gave an interview, then you should be able to cite the review. Please read WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW for more information. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for tip
Thanks for the tip. So far you have been the kindest person I've come across on Wikipedia. Crescent15 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you willing to discuss your desire to give me a "longish" block?
I note that I wrote WP:ADMINBESTPRACTICE. I am willing to have a discussion with you about the WP:ANEW report. jps (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have replied to your email. I will note, though, that you changed the wording of that essay in a way that has a bearing on this case, soon after posting here. Vanamonde (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You warn, James J. Lambden continues to edit war
James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
It doesn't look like he has learned. In spite of being warned by you and others!
jps (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A Wizard of Earthsea...
Just to say thanks for your work on the Earthsea novel; it was one of my favourites as a child, and it is nice to see it reaching GA! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggestions for Indo-Pakistan POV issues.
Hi Vanamonde! It looks like we're both trying to mediate POV issues at India and state-sponsored terrorism as well as the corresponding AfD.
What are we supposed to do when a collection of editors refuse to seek consensus? Sheriff and Mar have been dumping propaganda, conspiracy theories, and walls-of-WP:OR into this article for a full 24 hours. I know from their perspective, these are "good faith" edits, but from a global perspective they're pretty obviously bad.
Sorry for imposing, I figured you might have some experience with dealing with this kind of dispute. I'm losing faith in the consensus system because I keep seeing obvious WP:PROMO articles pass AfD via filibuster. Jergling (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there. South Asian articles do tend to attract a particularly clueless form of POV pushing, but as you can probably imagine, there is no magic-bullet solution to this problem. One of the things you can do is to invite more scrutiny, by posting an WP:RFC, or at WP:ORN. Additionally, there are certainly several sockpuppets active at the AfD; researching their likely masters and bringing them to admin attention would also be helpful (I don't have the time for that at the moment). As a last resort, if the original research continues unabated, posting at WP:AE might be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I take objection to the strong words used above. I can speak for myself - and as far as I'm concerned, my edits are not propaganda as long as they are covered reliably. I also hope Vanamonde93, as an impartial admin, if you could take a look at this move discussion which is a blatant attempt at unreliable POV. Mar4d (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Indian canvass socks
Please stop deleting the canvassing notice on the AFD as its clear that many Indian nationalists have alerted many Indian users to this afd and this obviously means the whole afd is now flawed and full of ultra nationalist chest thumpers from India. 82.132.231.131 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I get bashed at my RFA for being pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian, and I get bashed afterwards for being pro-Indian and anti-Pakistani. Wonderful, just wonderful...at least it shows I must be doing something right, I suppose. Vanamonde (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Classic deflection. Just stop deleting my notice I have not voted I just saw the intense canvassing hence why I put it in bold. 82.132.231.131 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- A significant milestone indeed, I would emphasise that it must mean you're doing something right. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Request
Can you semi-protect the pages Nikki Grahame, Now That's What I Call Music! discography and Kelly Clarkson? Because Special:Contributions/79.68.250.215 still distruptive editing. 183.171.180.92 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected all three pages, because there seemed to be significant disruption on all of them. A single user is probably best dealt with at WP:AIV, although there seems to be some IP-hopping here. I will also note that the semi-protection will lock you out as well. Vanamonde (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Jacobo Árbenz
Hello, Vanamonde -- I apologize for taking so long to complete the copy-edit of Jacobo Árbenz. I will get to it now. I noticed that an edit was made after I took a break from editing the article: [6]. I wonder which word you prefer, "invasion" or "conquest". They're fairly close in meaning, but to me, the former points to the initial arrival of the Spanish conquistadors while the second points to something completed. Also, "conquest" is not as common a word in English as "invasion". On the other hand, "invasion" might (a) be a more modern word and (b) carry a bit more of a negative connotation than "conquest". What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Corinne: No worries. I did notice the edit, but hadn't gotten around to looking at it properly yet. After some thought, I think "invasion" is more appropriate in this context, because it is referring to the fact that indigenous people lost their lands; this begun with the arrival of the Spanish, rather than after they completed their conquest. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Usually, when I have questions or concerns that I am unable to resolve on my own, I prepare them all at once when I have finished copy-editing the article. Since it's late and I will take a break soon, I thought I'd leave one question/concern for you to think about:
In the section Jacobo Árbenz#Government of Juan José Arévalo, we find the following two sentences:
- Arévalo's ideology was reflected in the new constitution that the Guatemalan assembly ratified soon after his inauguration, which was one of the most progressive in Latin America. It mandated suffrage for all but illiterate women, a decentralization of power, and provisions for a multiparty system.
Then, after a short sentence, we read:
- Arévalo implemented social reforms, including minimum wage laws, increased educational funding, near-universal suffrage (excluding illiterate women), and labor reforms.
Do you see that there is some repetition here? The second of the first two sentences describes three things that the new constitution mandated. The last sentence describes several things that Arévalo implemented.
Is it important to keep these two things separate (constitution mandated, Arévalo implemented)? If it is important to mention that the new constitution was "one of the most progressive in Latin America", is it necessary to give those three examples? (Is there a WP article on the Guatemalan constitution to which this could be linked for more information?)
By mentioning what Arévalo implemented so soon after describing the new constitution, the reader might wonder whether the "social reforms" that Arévalo implemented were all mandated by the new constitution, or whether he was acting on his own, or some combination of these.
Do you feel certain that all these things Arévalo implemented were social reforms? Aren't some of them economic and some political?
Just some things to think about. – Corinne (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Corinne: you're quite right, it is a little repetitious. The important thing is to make it clear that those reforms/positions were part of both the constitution and of Arevalo's program, because that is not a) self-evident, and b) always the case when a constitution is written after such a revolution. Repeating the text is not necessary. I'm trying to think of an elegant way to phrase this: perhaps something beginning "Arevalo's ideology was reflected in the constitution as well as the reforms he initiated...." but I'll think on this. Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the first two sentences are actually worded quite well. How about if we just add "these and other" before "implemented" and remove the repeated reference to sufferage in the last sentence? --
- Arévalo implemented
socialthese and other reforms, including minimum wage laws, increased educational funding,near-universal suffrage (excluding illiterate women), and labor reforms.
- Arévalo implemented
- Perhaps change "implemented" to "carried out" (a little connection with the new constitution):
Regarding the last version, I went ahead and made the change, but used "Once in office" instead of "During his term in office". I have pretty much completed the copy-edit. I may read through the article once more tomorrow (I've read through the first half of the article again already). I have a few questions about a few sentences for you:
1) The last sentence in the third paragraph of the section #Government of Juan José Arévalo is the following:
- In 1947 Arana had demanded that certain labor leaders be expelled from the country; Árbenz vocally disagreed with Arana, and the latter's intervention limited the number of deportees.
"The latter" in "the latter's intervention" seems to refer to Arana, but wasn't it Árbenz who intervened? If it was really Arana's intervention, shouldn't we make it a bit more explicit that Árbenz persuaded Arana to lighten up on his demands and intervene?
- You're quite right, it was Arbenz who intervened.
2) In the middle of the paragraph that is the section Jacobo Árbenz#Relationship with communists is the following sentence:
- Despite his position in Árbenz' government, however, Fortuny never became a popular figure in Guatemala, and did not have the sort of popular following that Gutierrez had.
I have searched through the article and cannot find any other mention of someone named "Gutierrez". This needs either the full name and/or a link to another article, or some sort of clarification.
- This is what happens when you work on a number of closely related articles; you start mixing them up in your head :) Gutierrez was one of the other leftist leaders of the time, but he did not have such a close connection to Arbenz, and mentioning him is therefore not necessary: we can probably just say "did not have a large popular following."
3) In the middle of the last paragraph in Jacobo Árbenz#Inauguration and ideology is the following sentence:
- Historian Piero Gleijeses has argued that although Árbenz' policies were intentionally capitalist in nature, his personal views gradually shifted towards communism.
Toward the end of the paragraph that is the section is the following sentence:
- Árbenz himself slowly moved towards communism as a part of his personal ideology, but only joined the communist party in 1957, three years after his overthrow, after he had been further radicalized by the actions of the CIA.
I know these are in different sections, but do you really want to say this twice?
- Given the widely held misconceptions about Arbenz' views/policies, I think being explicit even at the cost of some redundancy is worthwhile.
4) In the middle of the first paragraph in the section Jacobo Árbenz#Beginning of exile is the following sentence:
- When they were finally allowed to leave the country, Jacobo Árbenz was publicly humiliated at the airport because the liberationist authorities made the former president strip before the cameras,[128] claiming that he was carrying jewelry he had bought for his wife, María Cristina Villanova, at Tiffany's in New York City, using funds from the presidency; no jewelry was found but the interrogation lasted for an hour.
It is not entirely clear who is meant by "the liberationist authorities". "Liberationist" is not really an English word. Perhaps this is a translation from a Spanish source. If not, I recommend either using a different word or phrase or explaining it. Also, this phrase (even if it were an English word) is highly ironic; it seems to suggest that the army officers backed by the CIA were "liberating" Guatemala.
- That's probably where the term came from: I'm not sure why I included it! Just saying "authorities" is probably good enough there.
5) Toward the end of the paragraph in Jacobo Árbenz#Legacy is the following sentence:
- Árbenz himself once remarked that the "most precious fruit of the revolution and the fundamental base of the nation as a new country."
You will see that the sentence is ungrammatical. I wasn't sure how to fix it.
- Goof on my part. Fixed it: Arbenz was talking about the agrarian reform, as you might expect.
6) In the third paragraph in the section Jacobo Árbenz#Operation PBSuccess is the following sentence:
- Monzón informed Árbenz, who quickly sent another investigator, who brought back a message asking Árbenz to resign.
I searched for any other instance of the name "Monzón" in the article and could not find one. I think either the full name should be given and/or linked, or explained. Also, it is not clear whether this person is the same person mentioned two sentences earlier:
- The leaders of the communist party also began to have their suspicions, and sent a member to investigate.
- Yes, I can see that this is an issue. The confusion is understandable, as there was an Alvarado Monzon who was PGT Secretary General, and an Elfego Monzon who was a colonel in the army: both had minor roles in the events of that time. I've clarified it.
Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Corinne: I've responded point by point. I hope this addresses your concerns: thank you for a very detailed overview of the prose. Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I just noticed that in the first paragraph in the section Jacobo Árbenz#1950 Election you have the phrase "his friend Giordani". The name Giordani is mentioned only a few sentences later in the same paragraph. Can you find and add the complete name at the first mention? – Corinne (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Kelly McGillis
HI Vanamonde93. Would you mind taking another look at Kelly McGillis when you get the chance? The IP you blocked seems to be back with two new IP accounts and is making the same edits despite being reverted by multiple editors and bots. A request for page protection was made at WP:RPP, but it hasn't been acted upon yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've protected the page: there isn't much point blocking anybody, as they seem able to switch IPs easily. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A bit of help? What do I do with it? John from Idegon (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- John from Idegon: Well, you seem to have done the right thing by sending it to RfD. The thing is as a redirect it isn't eligible for any of the CSD criteria: there's a fairly legitimate argument to be made that since we do not have an article on the individual, her name should redirect to an article which could plausibly cover the incident she is notable for. Now the article does not actually cover this information, as you have stated at the RfD, but given the circumstances I was not comfortable speedy-deleting it. I hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. My concern was the worry expressed at the AfD. There was some discussion on the school article talk page too. But I think the redirect should go away just fine....once I figured out which bowl of alphabet soup to stick it in. Creating a redirect after a very clear decision to delete, especially for BLP reasons, seems quite bad faith to me. John from Idegon (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- The alphabet soup certainly takes a while to learn: I'm still learning it myself, despite being an admin and whatnot :). It is possible that the redirect was created in a fit of pique, but (as I said above) since it is a defensible redirect, I'd rather AGF: it's at RfD now, so let's just let it go. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. My concern was the worry expressed at the AfD. There was some discussion on the school article talk page too. But I think the redirect should go away just fine....once I figured out which bowl of alphabet soup to stick it in. Creating a redirect after a very clear decision to delete, especially for BLP reasons, seems quite bad faith to me. John from Idegon (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Operation PBFORTUNE
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation PBFORTUNE you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
PSTS Group
Hi Vanamonde93,
We had earlier posted content on Wikipedia on the PSTS Group. We had seen an article published on TVS Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVS_Group. We wanted PSTS to get a recognition along similar lines. So we tried to publish an article on PSTS Group. This article was deleted under (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). We have reworked the article and deleted any marketing references in the same. The article is given below. Kindly advise whether we can publish the article now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjulag (talk • contribs)
- @Anjulag: Hi there. I have removed the article you pasted here because this is not really the place (and it messed up the formatting) but don't worry, I took a look at it. There are still some matters of concern. First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Subjects don't have articles so that they can receive recognition: articles are created about a subject if it can be shown that the subject is notable. I am still unsure if your article meets our standard for notability. Second, and more importantly, from what you have said it sounds like you have a conflict of interest with respect to this subject. Please read the linked guideline carefully. If, after reading the various links I have posted here, you still believe that you can create an appropriate page, I would strongly suggest using the Articles for Creation process. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
- News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna
- Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input
- Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017
- Featured content: Variety is the spice of life
- Traffic report: Debates and escapes
- Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report
I was about to review the article, but the article needs a lot of touch up with the grammar and MOS, so I suggest you to place a request at WP:GOCE, before someone reviews the article. Subsequently, I nominated the review page I have created under CSD G7 because it is of no use (rationale provided) and for now because the guild has a severe backlog and it would take no less than a month, so I (or another reviewer) will do it after the ce is complete. I did the closing procedures per WP:GAN/I. The article also needs and infobox, try {{Infobox military operation}}. Vanamonde, please do not consider this as a fail, but something like just a procedural close. After the review page is deleted, kindly update the |page= parameter in GA nominee template to 1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I'm not sure precisely what you are doing here. You are well within your rights to fail the nomination, but if you think the issues are solvable, surely putting it on hold would be more usual? Also, as somebody who copy edits for the GOCE, I'm fairly sure that the article is free of major grammar issueschool, and the GOCE is also not going to to address very specific MOS comments you may have. In any case, I now have no way of knowing what those issues are. Karellen93 (talk) ('s alternative account) 10:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Karellen93: All the stuff is now cleaned-up. From my part I sincerely advise a GOCE edit (they do comply with the MOS following their 5C policy), if you don't feel so, please, let us wait for another editor to take up the nomination. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're not understanding me: you seem to have specific issues with respect to MOS that you want fixed. Neither myself nor any potential copy-editor is psychic, and knows what those quibbles might be; which is why it would have been helpful for you to raise those on the review page and then putting the review on hold, rather than getting it speedied. That's all. (The other one's my alternative account, btw, no need to ping it). Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Karellen93: All the stuff is now cleaned-up. From my part I sincerely advise a GOCE edit (they do comply with the MOS following their 5C policy), if you don't feel so, please, let us wait for another editor to take up the nomination. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
Hi
I just wanted to notify you about the fact that user Surtsicna continues to edit war at different royalties articles such as Princess Madeleine. Also being combative with me at his talk page. Ignoring any attempt to discuss the edit wars situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: I was offline, my apologies. I will take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- My main reason for contacting you is that Surtsicna refuses to discuss any matter at the talk pages of the articles he edits. But he sure has got the energy to report that other user for simply wanting him to discuss. It is a pattern that goes way back sadly. Just like now. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: I took a look. While there is certainly sub-par behavior going on, a lot of it was before my warning to them at ANEW. In my view, this means that a second warning is pointless, and a block is not yet justified. Furthermore, the behavior of the "other side" has not been ideal either: there are several talk pages without any discussion whatsoever. So for now, I am not going to take any action: if the disruption gets worse, please report them back to ANEW, and in the meantime please make a sustained effort to discuss this issue. Vanamonde (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make it clear that I am not part of the discussion. But neither parties that are supposed to discuss it have both removed my plea for them to do so at their respective talk pages. And no discussion has been initiated at the Princess talk page either. I guess or are inclined to believe that the edit war will continue once the article is unprotected. Hopefully they have both learned something. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: I took a look. While there is certainly sub-par behavior going on, a lot of it was before my warning to them at ANEW. In my view, this means that a second warning is pointless, and a block is not yet justified. Furthermore, the behavior of the "other side" has not been ideal either: there are several talk pages without any discussion whatsoever. So for now, I am not going to take any action: if the disruption gets worse, please report them back to ANEW, and in the meantime please make a sustained effort to discuss this issue. Vanamonde (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- My main reason for contacting you is that Surtsicna refuses to discuss any matter at the talk pages of the articles he edits. But he sure has got the energy to report that other user for simply wanting him to discuss. It is a pattern that goes way back sadly. Just like now. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk page messages
thank you. It just no need to remove it. It is a kind of ignoring messages. In arabic wikipedia it is not allowed to remove messages exept for archiving your talk page because no harm from let it and no benefit from removing it. Regards--مصعب (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @مصعب: perhaps, but this is English Wikipedia, and our policies are different. You have already been asked to read WP:OWNTALK. You really need to drop the stick. Pursuing this further, with any messages to me or other users, is likely to be considered disruptive, and can be met with a block. This is the last I want to hear of the subject. Please find something else to do. Vanamonde (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
ORCP
Hi, Vanamonde, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to start a new poll and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: I would do, except that I passed my RFA more than a month ago; and you were support number 29. I'd offer you a small fish of some sort, except that I have plenty of these moments too. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry - my bad. That comes from working from an old list. Keep the fish, we breed our own and my wife sells them wet and fresh at the market. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Help needed with continued edit warring
Hi Vanamonde... on 10 October you issued a 24 hour block on User:BoBoMisiu for 3rr edit warring at Papal ban of Freemasonry (see User talk:BoBoMisiu#October 2016). Unfortunately, as soon as his block expired, the editor continued to edit war to retain the same text (not surprising, given the comments he made in responce to having his unblock request rejected)
Here are the diffs for his continued edit warring, all made since your block.
He seems unrepentant, so I think a longer block may be in order. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Should I report this at ANI... or will you addressed it? Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies, I didn't notice this for some reason, and then RL caught up with me. I'd rather not login to my main account right now (I'm on a phone) but I'll take a look soon as possible. If you want a response earlier than two hours from now, there's no harm in posting to ANEW. Regards, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, having taken a further look at this, I am not going to block at this point. Aside from the fact that Bobo's last edit was 24 hours ago, the frequency of reverts has also come down, and the other users (including yourself) are not blameless, either. Indeed, I am tempted to full-protect the page, and will do so if the dispute gets any worse. You folks are clearly able to have a moderately productive talk page discussion: why must you accompany it with continual reverts on the article? Vanamonde (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
Hi
I am sorry for contacting you again so soon. But could you take a look at this comment and several more from user Nableezy. I think that kind of language at an AfD is quite over the top. I mean no one else in the discussion uses swear words or insult like that. I might be overreacting but I rather contact you and let you just take a look at it than just let it pass. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- [7], [8], [9]. Here he even removes a comment from another user [10].--BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
article refund request for Gerald Gurian
Hi, could you please Userfy the deleted Gerald Gurian article to my Userspace (including its full edit history)?
Background: I participated in, and you were the closer of, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Gurian. I agree there was clear consensus that Gerald Gurian is not Wikipedia-notable if more sources are not found. However I would like access to try to use its material to add something to one or more of the many Star Trek-related list-articles. And it may turn out that "Gerald Gurian" would usefully be a redirect to an item there, and if a redirect is going to exist, I would want it to include its edit history, so if GG does become more clearly notable, it can be restored properly as an article. I want to work with the material, and have access to see who added what, anyhow.
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, doncram 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)