Jump to content

User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 13    Archive 14    Archive 15 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)


Adele Dunlap

Sorry, but how does a discussion six weeks ago, when she was second oldest American to the then-oldest, who has since died and therefore the same notability passed to the next, still relevant? — Wyliepedia 21:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adele Dunlap and I see that the arguments used by those who argued for deletion still apply. The main argument was the lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. I still do not see any significant improvement regarding that. If you are sure she now passes WP:GNG, you can try WP:DRV. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was looking for the proper override and will try there. — Wyliepedia 21:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vishwachander notice

Hi, I noticed you blocked this user Vishwachander on 24 March 2016 for sockpuppetry. This user just created an inappropriate article such as KUMBALA PRAVEEN REDDY which was mentioned in the SPI investigation. Thanks. Ayub407talk 17:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayub407: The page is already deleted. What do you expect me to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. The sockmaster recreated the inappropriate article after his block. I thought you'd block him or something. I was just letting you know :|. Ayub407talk 18:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ayub407: But, he was not blocked for creating articles, he was blocked for sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please supervise the incident

Hi, please supervise Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents KIENGIR section. You, as a person interested in history can easily see what's going on. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Anneclara

See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Whatever. I still think user has to be blocked in such a case. Recreating deleted article in an identical form is enough evidence for me. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Noticeboards

Can you help me, in which section on Wikipedia:Noticeboards to ask a question about Novak's mother. This should solve neutral users.--Suzichi (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzichi: Why would you need noticeboard? Questions about an article should be discussed at that article's talk page. I see that the discussion just started yesterday. If you want to advertise the discussion, you may use WP:RfC. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the goal of Wiki users from Serbia to cover up the truth about the origins of Novak's mother, and on the talk page will not get to the truth. --Suzichi (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hello, I noticed that you correctly closed the discussion here as delete. The subject has got more coverage since then and I am writing to inquire whether the sources I will provide below can work as reliable sources per Wikipedia policy to warrant the subjects inclusion on Wikipedia leading to a recreation of the same. Thank you in advance.
1. Nextiva on Foxnews
2. Article on Bizjournalsa popular journal in the United States
3. The story of the founding of Nextiva in the Huffington Post
4. Older but quite some good coverage in the Business News Daily here.
5. There is also some coverage on HighBeam about Nextiva as seen here. TushiTalk To Me 10:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kagundu: The AfD was closed on 12 February, and it went trough deletion review twice (1 March and 16 May). All the sources you presented were published before 16 May, except one (number 2). Source No.4 was already mentioned in the original AfD. Sources No.1, 3 and 4 were mentioned in the second deletion review. So, I don't see anything "new" here. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hi. We desperately need somebody at wp:aiv because it is getting so overloaded with reports. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D474:9803:9E87:F3D (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look especially overloaded to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Newman

Thank you for your help there. Could you please also move the page back. User:Alanpopo123 never should have moved it in the first place. Thanks in advance.24.114.22.31 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, 24.114.22.31 is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979 --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Deletion

Hi there, it would appear that you wrongfully deleted a page about Stefen Colalillo.

Stefen is a Canadian filmmaker and content creator. He works with us at Fullscreen, the largest online media source, and he has worked on various Canadian films. He is an influential online personality, and creating a page for him is now blocked. If there is a way for you to undo this deletion, it would be very appreciated!

Thank you,

BookSmeade115 (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)BookSmeade115[reply]

@BookSmeade115: That person does not seam to be WP:NOTABLE according to Wikipedia's criteria. The article did not cite any wp:reliable source to comfirm his notability (see: WP:42). Wikipedia only accepts articles that show notability of the subject. You may try to create a draft and include some reliable sources with significant coverage (if they exist). Than, you may submit the draft to the WP:AfC process. But, my deletion will not be undone. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake on our part as we mistakenly published the page prior to completing our citations.

BookSmeade115 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)BookSmeade115[reply]

@BookSmeade115: Since you made that mistake three times, I protected the title so that you won't make the same mistake again. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! --NeilN talk to me 08:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch Vikentije listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Patriarch Vikentije. Since you had some involvement with the Patriarch Vikentije redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a sock

I have a hunch that User:Searcher11 is a sock of User:Suzichi. The former knows how to sign after a comment (they have experience with wikipedia) and it is highly suspicious that this user would pop up out of nowhere and jump at the Djokovic talk page first , looking to shift consensus. Clearly a single-purpose account, and no one other than Suzichi has any reason to pursue such course of action. 23 editor (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit as an ip and I'm not a newcomer and. Thank you for stopping with reverts. I still haven't made any reports and this is a bit too silly situation to start with.You are free to check, but don't remove valid sources. Searcher11 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also grammatical similarities. Both have a habit of using run-on sentences. For example: "I edit as an ip and I'm not a newcomer and." (Searcher 11) and "On Wikipedia discussing with the facts. " (Suzichi) Also, both tend to shuffle words in the wrong order. Example: "I still haven't made any reports and this is a bit too silly situation to start with. " (Searcher11) and "What are for you neutral and relevant references? " (Suzichi) 23 editor (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Searcher11 is the famous "Nikola Tesla is not Serb".--Zoupan 16:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean User:Asdisis, Zoupan? 23 editor (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Zoupan 18:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, can you check if User:82.214.103.5 and User:Suzichi or User:Searcher11 are related. The grammatical quirks and similarities between the IP and Searcher are uncanny. 23 editor (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

On your talk page [1] user 23 editor and Zoupan slander other users, removes contribute to the talk page... To you it is ok? My reaction in Talk:Novak Djokovic it is only because of this behavior.--Suzichi (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re I akshat

I wanted to inform you that I fixed what I think was a typo in your message to I akshat. It said 'now allowed' when I'm pretty sure you wanted to say 'not allowed'. I apologize if I made a mistake. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Patriarchs

Hi, thank you for your help regarding the titles of pages dedicated to Serbian Patriarchs. Now, I need some additional help. As you know, we have some old problems with consistency when it comes to the use of Serbian Patriarchal titles. It is quite surprising that we are still using some fantasy titles that never existed. As I wrote in talk section on the Patriarch Pavle and Patriarch Irinej pages, heads of Serbian Orthodox Church are called Serbian Patriarchs, not "Patriarch of Serbia". Such title has never existed in history and it does not exist now. No head of SOC was ever called "Патријарх Србије" (Patriarch of Serbia). The real title is: "Патријарх српски" (Serbian Patriarch): "Патриарх" is a noun - Patriarch, and "српски" is adjective - Serbian. Everyone can look at the Google Books for so-called title "Патријарх Србије": just 9 (nine) hits. And real title: Патријарх српски has 3260 hits! Pages dedicated to Serbian Patriarchs should have titles like: "Serbian Patriarch Irinej" or "Serbian Patriarch Pavle" and so on, simply because all of them were "Serbian Patriarch" and not "Patriarch of Serbia". Same goes for other Serbian Patriarchs from the foundation of the Serbian Patriarchate to the present day. If you have time, please go to official web page of Serbian Orthodox Church in English (http://www.spc.rs/eng/church): there you have an official translation of the Constitution of SOC, look at the article no. 11 that defines the title of the patriarch as: "Archbishop of Pech, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovac, and Serbian Patriarch"! So, there it is: Serbian Patriarch, not "Patriarch of Serbia". As you saw yesterday, I tried to make some corrections, for the sake of accuracy and consistency, but ... user "23 editor" did not understand my actions and instead of talking to me he contacted user "Zoupan" who reverted page Serbian Patriarch Dimitrije to Patriarch Dimitrije, and Serbian Patriarch Varnava to Patriarch Varnava. I contacted them, with detailed explanations of facts, but they did not respond, so far. I think that all pages dedicated to Serbian Patriarchs should be styled "Serbian Patriarch X" as many of them already are. Please, take a look at this issue if you have time and forgive me because this message is too long. Sorabino (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorabino: I don't see what's the problem with "Patriarch Dimitrije"? According to your logic the title of the article should be "Archbishop of Peć, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci, and Serbian Patriarch Dimitrije". But, in Wikipedia the title should be as short as possible while reflecting the common usage (see: WP:CONCISE). Since there was no other Patriarch Dimitrije except the Serbian one, why would we need the word "Serbian" in the title? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in Wikipedia, we prefer to have a discussion on one place. Currently, you initiated this same discussion on five(!) different places (here, [Talk:Patriarch Irinej of Serbia]], Talk:Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, User_talk:Zoupan#Title_changes and User_talk:23_editor#Fantasy_title_:_.22Patriarch_of_Serbia.22). It is not really possible to have one discussion on five different pages. You should have started the discussion on one page (preferably article talk page) and than WP:ping other users to join it. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all things I wrote, you are responding to things that are not in my message? I did not propose the long title, that is not my logic. This is not a game, we are talking about Serbian Patriarchs whose pages are violated with fictional title "Patriarch of Serbia". That is the main point of my message. You did not address that issue, and you should, because as I can see it is you who unintentionally created this issue on 22 January 2010 when you moved page of newly elected Serbian Patriarch Irinej to its incorrect present title Patriarch Irinej of Serbia and therefore it is your duty as an editor to correct that problem. Are you aware of anti-Serbian connotations of reducing the title of Serbian Patriarch just on Serbia? If you are not, It is my duty to inform you that many adversaries of Serbian People are claiming that jurisdiction of our Patriarch should be confined to Serbia only and they are advocating partition of Serbian Orthodox Church. That is additional reason to change false title "Patriarch of Serbia". Please, look at this issue in more detail, solution is very easy. Sorabino (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I agree with you that "of Serbia" is not correct and should be removed. I thought it's obvious. I just don't see what's the problem with the "Patriarch Dimitrije" title (that is in your message). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for clarification, I understand you now - I was somewhat confused and surprised by your previous answer. So, how shall we initiate changes from Patriarch Pavle of Serbia to "Serbian Patriarch Pavle" and from Patriarch Irinej of Serbia to "Serbian Patriarch Irinej"? Since we already have titles: Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo, Serbian Patriarch Vikentije and Serbian Patriarch German, it would be best, for the sake of consistency, to have titles for Dimitrije and Varnava also as: "Serbian Patriarch Dimitrije" and "Serbian Patriarch Varnava". Once we put correct patriarchal title in the titles of all relevant pages, consistency will be achieved and also, any possibility of confusion or future error will be reduced significantly. Sorabino (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sorabino: You should make a WP:move request. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly abide that we refrain from unnecessary disambiguation and awkward styling. Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo V should be at Gavrilo V, Serbian Patriarch Vikentije II at Vikentije II, i.e. I would suggest that we move all post-unification patriarchs to "Patriarch X" or "X, Serbian Patriarch", depending on our conclusion. Leave medieval and early modern patriarchs at their original names (without title). No other church head-article uses the style (with demonym prefix) proposed by Sorabino.--Zoupan 02:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan: I agree, I just think we need a more centralized discussion on this topic. Maybe a move request for the whole group of pages would be good. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New attack on Serbian Patriarchs.

Hi, during last 24 hours something quite weird has happened to titles of pages dedicated do various Serbian patriarchs, again. The words "Serbian" and "Patriarch" were removed from titles of this pages: Maksim I, Atanasije I, Mojsije I, Vikentije I, Pajsije II, Gavrilo V, Vikentije II. By those moves, several problems are now created. First, new titles are more appropriate for disambiguation pages, since for each title there are several Serbian church leaders (patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops) that can be attributed with same name and number. Second, moves were made without any discussion, and that is quite odd because user "Zoupan" who made or initiated those moves is quite aware of various issues that were discussed earlier on some talk pages, since he participated in those discussions. I wont go into his motives here, it is clear that he has some agenda. Also, there is a question of consistency. Titles for pages dedicated to Serbian patriarch should be standardized and they should follow some basic form, like: "Serbian Patriarch (name, and number - if needed)". Since Serbian patriarch are important for Serbian history almost as much as Serbian rulers, I think that this issue, including recent unnecessary moves, should be reviewed by senior users and editors who are in charge of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia. We should return words "Serbian Patriarch" to titles of those pages, before "someone" tries to "fix" this problem by adding incorrect title "of Serbia". So, what should be the next step in resolving this issue? Sorabino (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorabino: First of all, I don't see any "attacks" here. Zoupan moved those pages because he thinks new titles are more concise and common. You should not that WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME are official Wikipedia policies, while there is no policy that says that titles should be standardized and follow some basic form. You allegation that other user has some agenda just because he does not agree with you is a kind of WP:personal attack which you should avoid. We don't have anything like "senior users" and no one is in charge of WikiProject Serbia. Wikiproject is a collaborative effort of all participants who are all equal. I think we need a more general discussion on this topic. I recommend you to start such a discussion. You can do it on one of the talk pages of affected articles (it can be in a for of WP:move request), or on the talk page of the Wikiproject. Just be sure to present your ideas neutrally, without attacking other users. I will be glad to participate. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for advice. I think that this issue should be discussed on WikiProject Serbia in order to reach consensus. And just for the record, pages for popes are highly standardized, and they follow basic form: "Pope (name, number)". Same goes for various other lines of ecclesiastical officials. That is the convention on Wikipedia and people respect that. Same should apply for Serbian patriarchs. And about Zoupan and his actions, they took place from 02.22 to 02.28 - changing titles of ten pages in 6 minutes, and requesting some additional moves, without any discussion and using "uncontroversial" option! Was all that done in good faith? Facts speak for themselves. Sorabino (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to inform you on recent developments: I alerted editor Anthony Appleyard, who acted previously upon "uncontroversial" move requests from user Zoupan, and that editor has reviewed all problematic changes made by Zoupan, cancelling them, so all pages are now returned by the same editor to their previous titles, containing words "Serbian Patriarch". I guess this will help us in resolving all other remaining issues. Sorabino (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Sorabino at my talk page, his, and here. I did indeed suggest he start a discussion at the project, before his unanimous decision to prefix. He did not enter a discussion, and continues to accuse me of "attacks" and "agendas". Did we or not agree at #Serbian Patriarchs?--Zoupan 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with you, but I would like to hear more discussion with more arguments, as this is a bit complex issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmithN41V's sockpuppetry investigation

Hi Vanjagenije, yesterday I was accused of sock puppetry and I was blocked for 24 hours, I understand the reason why you would've blocked me as you had reason to believe that I had used multiple IP addresses to make edits, while your claims aren't without merit, the IP address I was accused of using was not mine and this user is not associated with me at all, I was shocked to find I was blocked, and due to my blockage I was unable to make my response claim until now, I hope you take the time to reevaluate how quickly you block a user based on sockpuppetry suspection as I ALWAYS make edits signed in and I believe any issue on Wikipedia can be resolved through the talk page, thank you. SmithN41V 18:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SmithN41V: You say that you were unable to make my response claim until now. When a user is blocked, he can still edit his user talk page and can make unblock requests (as explained in the blocking message I left on your user talk page). So, you could make an unblock request on your talk page as soon as you found out you were blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airports of Serbia

Hi Vanjagenije, since you're an admin, do you think you can reverse this move I made some time back?[2]. I'm not sure if there is a way I can do it, but the simple "move" failed because it exists as a redirect. So you know, it is just for simplicity and nothing political. --OJ (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asilah1981 case

Excuse me, what the hell are you doing? I posted all the requirements, evidence, and diffs, what are you doing? It took me 2 hours to search all the stuff and post it, on top all of the disruption the reported editor is bringing about. Is it a technicality? All that I wrote and saved did not to show later on the Sockpuppet investigastion case I do not know why, very disappointing, and later, you remove everything. Sorry I am (bitterly) waiting an explanation, thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iñaki LL: I'm not sure what are you talking about. Your addition addition to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asilah1981 was reverted by Bbb23. What does it have to do with me? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it must have been the shock, since you were also on the history record I must have mistaken the entry. I should apologize then. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello

You recently removed a picture that I had added to the world heritage site article. I agree with you that the article may get overcrowded if we add lots of pictures, but I added that specific picture because it is the very first site to be called a "heritage site" so can you add that back and remove one of the other pictures. I was also thinking of putting in a gallery at the end of the article and removing all other pictures all together. Any thoughts on that? TouristerMan (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TouristerMan: We had a gallery in that article, and it was so large that the the article looked like a picture book, not like an encyclopedic article. Everybody though that World Heritage sites in their country should be illustrated, and the gallery just kept growing. According to WP:NOTGALLERY, Wikipedia articles should not contain indiscriminate collection of images. Few images to illustrate the concept are, of course, recommended. But, if you add an image, someone else will add another image, and the article will become a picture book once again. If you think the image you added is better to illustrate the concept than one of the existing images, fee free to replace it, but be ready to explain your position. As I can see here, Aachen Cathedral was among the original 12 World Heritage sites, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it was the very first site to be called a "heritage site". Vanjagenije (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vanjagenije I meant that it is usually called site#1 in the heritage list of sites. There are numbers for each site and as new sites are nominated they are numbered as they come. I think we should include a gallery of the first twelve and let it be. As such a gallery will not be "an indiscriminate collection" it may pass muster with the policy. TouristerMan (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TouristerMan: I think that's a bad idea. If you add 12 images to the gallery, no one will be able to stop numerous users who will try to add images of sites from their country. Trust me, I have that article on my watch list, and that is happening very often. OK, if you think the site #1 is interesting as an illustration of the concept, feel free to replace one of the existing images. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vanjagenije ty. One more thing, if you can help em out with that. IS there a centralized directory/forum etc where issues with tourism related articles are discussed and people who travel etc can give their input, or at least use the centralized issue databank to see which articles need editing in order to raise their standard? I am a bit new , although I tried to read up on most of your policies and guidelines before joining, I was unable to find your centralized forum TouristerMan (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TouristerMan: That should be WP:WikiProject Travel and Tourism (discussion is at WT:WikiProject Travel and Tourism). I'm not sure how active that project is. Some WP:Wikiprojects are very active, and some are virtually abandoned. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese Canadians

Hi Vanjagenije. Regarding this, I realise that there is no duplication in scope, but the whole text of the article is copied from South Sudanese Canadians. Is there a better course of action to resolve this? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Well, the best course of action would be to improve the article . I'm not really sure that Sudanese Canadians pass WP:GNG for groups, I don't see reliable sources. You can try WP:AfD. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree that improvement is the best option, but that relies on sources and I'm not sure they exist. Surely an internal copyright violation should be dealt with though? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: Well, Wikipedia is published under a free license, so it is not really a "copyright violation". The material should be attributed, I know, but it can be done afterwards using the {{Copied}} template. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understood - I was just using that as shorthand. I've done a very basic rewrite of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there do appear to be some sources, so I can try to improve the article based on those. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

email?

Hey - I have a notification that you sent me an email, but I didn't get it. I've looked in the spam and the trash and the special IgnoreEverythingFromVanja file I preemptively set up years ago (ha!) and I just didn't get it, which is kind of weird for Gmail. Would you resend it? I might not have time to get to it today because I'm traveling but I'll answer as soon as I can. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 12:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Since it's not top secret, I can write it here. I indefinitely blocked user (MightyDinoPower15) for making legal threats. He sent e-mail to UTRS ([3]) in which he explicitly revoked his legal threat. Yet, you declined his request and sent him standard "no legal threats" response ("as long as your legal threats or action stand, you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia"). I thought such a response is confusing, as he revoked the threat. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I remember this one. The legal threat is still right there at the top of his talk page. That doesn't spell 'retraction' to me. When he removes the public statement that runs counter to his private UTRS statement, I'm good with unblocking. In all fairness, I probably should have been explicit in telling him he has to publicly retract his threat. Katietalk 13:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: He can't remove it from his talk page, his talk page access has been revoked. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I'll unlock his talk page so he can retract. Katietalk 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KrakatoaKatie I've re-opened the appeal ticket to allow you to send another e-mail to the user with the clarified instructions, as per the discussion above. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked, ticket closed. Thanks, all. :-) Katietalk 13:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaaz Khan (Pakistani actor)

Hi, would like to appeal the deletion of this page because it was not identical to the page that was deleted at AFD as I added extra references to it and added to the content.Also, regarding G5 I made substantial edits to the page apart from the blocked user.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I restored the page, and sent it to the AfD. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is very fair Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Daryl Horgan

Could I get you to reconsider the speedy deletion of this article? The WikiProject football maintains a list of fully professional leagues specifically for evaluating the notability of footballers. You'll note that the League of Ireland, the only league Horgan has played in, is listed with sources as a top flight which is not fully pro. This was the main reason for deletion in both afd's, and that hasn't changed. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: You are right, but still, the article is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". I don't think the G4 apply. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marko Miljanov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vendetta. 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) 09:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sizzle Page Deletion

Greetings!

I was told you deleted the DJ Sizzle page. I'm trying to recover all the information that was put on the page.. How can I do that? DMcCray1 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DMcCray1: I moved it to your user space, it's here: User:DMcCray1/DJ Sizzle. If you improve the article, you can use the WP:AfC process. Please, do not move it back to the main namespace because it will be deleted again. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too hasty

This block was too hasty, and in my opinion, a mistake. The newbie editor should have been given a chance to change his or her username before rushing in to block. The newbie editor had already been given instructions on how to do this, reinforced by the note appended to my welcome message. New editors should be encouraged, not blocked. If the editor had persisted editing without changing username, then that would have been the correct time to block.

Neither do the newbie's edits constitute "spam" in my opinion. Typical clumsy newbie edits, yes, but not spam, since the info he or she added correctly belongs in those two articles. It should have been tidied up, not reverted.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Coincidence - I see we both opened our accounts on the same date! --NSH001 (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One edit! Come on, is that really enough to justify a block? Especially since it is possible that the editor may have already been composing that edit at the time the warning was issued, and wouldn't have seen it until he or she pressed "save". Note also that he or she ceased editing completely after I reinforced the warning, which is what matters in the current situation. Even vandals don't get blocked until they've received several warnings. As for adding links, that is just a typical clumsy newbie mistake, not an attempt at "spam". Admins need to show an appreciation for the problems faced by newbie editors. It is not reasonable to expect brand-new editors to be familiar with all wiki rules, especially one who is obviously struggling to work out the technical complexities of wiki editing. --NSH001 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Oops, sorry, I misread the time stamps, it was more than one edit. But I still think it right to note that the editor had ceased editing after I reinforced the warning. --NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NSH001: User made 10 edits after you 331dot left them the warning. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user made NO edits after I reinforced the warning (11:34), user's latest edit was at 10:00. --NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further from a newbie's perspective (which I am as guilty as you are of not doing), the first warning doesn't actually say specifically "stop editing until you've changed your username". Not surprising that the newbie continues editing ... --NSH001 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Milla Stadium

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Milla Stadium. Class455 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Greetings, Vanja. I've observed that you help out a lot at UAA, identifying usernames that are not blatant violations, should be discussed with the user etc. I would appreciate it if you could give me some advice on how to know whether a username is a blatant violation or not, or what to do when I come to a username that looks a bit suspicious.

For example, here are some usernames I've thought of. Which ones would you say would be blatant, not blatant, need to be discussed with the user, wait until the user edits etc.?

  • TheLifeOfDavidBowie
  • TheRealBenAffleck
  • Sexxboobs703
  • TheWikipediaDeveloper
  • rnkgnlbgjmspgkdjsgkiwgjpkagjrkhjdskgjdskb*
  • XYZMusicOfficial
  • Queer642
  • RVVBOT
  • OddBot Even
  • TwasBrilligAndTheSlithyTovesDidGyreAndGimbleInTheWabe*
  • ABCDEElementary
  • AssAsssAsssss
  • UsainBolt95094
  • Lolyoloswag333

*Exceed 40 characters

Хвала вам! Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message as a courtesy 15:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: You should read our WP:Username policy to learn what usernames are permitted. For example, TheLifeOfDavidBowie is allowed since Bowie is (unfortunately) dead. Whether we block a user outright or try to discuss the problem depends not just on the username, but also on his behavior. For example, if a user named XYZMusicOfficial creates promotional article about a company called "XYZ Music", I block them. But, if the same user makes useful edits (for example, copy editing), then I leave a notice on their talk page that they need to change their username. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Károlyi Article - Disruptive editing

Hi, I read carefully the WP:Disruptive editing page and as a first step I think the most proper is to ask Administrator help at once. Since approx. a week, suspicious IP Adresses continously overriding a long time ago existing CONSENSUS on the subject's birthplace, that is anyway fulfilling Wikipedia standards and customs about the usage of the contemporary names, moreover not any affected Wikiprojects have a debate on the status quo on the correspondent time. Also, a current user User talk:Şerban Alexandru Oprescu the 4th time overriding consensus and reverting continously with the IP Adresses simultaneously on a while the lead and the infobox. Since I am not an expert how to handle IP adresses, I warned more times the user in the edit log, the third time on his personal page about WP:Disruptive editing....and again the same scenario happened...it is very disturbing, the user is totally ignoring the case and rejecting communication. Please intervene to solve the problem. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi,
I spent a lot of time to read carefully WP:edit war, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Vandalism, to really identify what action can be taken and when. Since the corresponding content is a result of a consensus that was approved that time an Administrator, restoring to the consensus content I did not found as a violation of any rule, moreover, it is about the biography of a living person. I also did not see the case of an edit war, since first the IP adresses and their partners made these action not so often like the recent time, however the 3RR was not even approached that is a clear limit of violation. Since IP adresses I dont know how to deal, after the second-third time I warned the editor, also in his personal page, since only Disruptive editing I was able to prove, and the guidelines said we have to first to initiate a communication. This case, the corresponding user should have be a partner in communication and try to build a new consensus, although in this case he has almost no chance for this, regarding what he forces is not valid. As you see, other editors also made reverts in this question like me, and I think most of my reverts consist of anonymus IP Adresses. If I did soemething wrong, I am sorry, tell me in the future what is the clear limit/trigger to ask for Administrator assistance (I mean I should not distinguish between phantom IP's or editor's with account?)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: If you really read carefully WP:edit war, as you say, than you probably read that "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable." You also read that "3 revert rule is not a definition of edit warring, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." You reverted to your proffered version 11 times in several days, which is obvious edit warring. Your conclusion that restoring to the consensus content is not edit warring is wrong. It is not allowed to edit war even if you are right. Instead, you should follow the usual WP:BRD process and try to discuss the matter with other editor(s) before you revert their edits. You were just reverting without trying to discuss. I found only one attempt of yours to discuss the issue (here), but even that message was left after you already reverted that user's edit. Leaving wp:edit summaries does not really count as discussing. Regarding IP editors, they should be treated the same way as registered users. There should be no difference in approach. You don't need to be expert for IP editors. The fact that the other editor is editing anonymously does not give you the right to edit war. The fact that other editors also made reverts is of no importance here; you are not allowed to edit war just because someone else is edit warring. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you cite, it is not totally clear what repeatedly would mean. Without any exact definition it would mean after two reverts the station should be treated as an edit war, thus an Administrator should have been warned. Usually, by experience after three failed attempts I initiated an exact talk page communication if the edit summary short reasoning was not enough. Maybe this "three" attempts come from the 3RR that is a clear limit, although for something else. Please note 2 reverts was with an other editor that after stopped the disruptive editing, thus that case solved on it's own. So, I apologize again and I will follow in the future according as you clarified here. What I have learned that any consensus even with a former Administrator approval has not any advantage - regarding reverting or edit warring policy - with any bold edit with any new addition that would be disputed. I have learned also that with IP adresses also I should initiate at once WP:BRD policy - since many people has random generated IP address by service, I was not sure how effective it would be. Well my problematic interpretation was about edit warring, I did not regarded the case like so. So please, tell me what is repeatedly by totally exact definition, because I regarded the bright line 3RR as a trigger for obvious edit warring, that's why I concentrated on the case of disruptive editing.
-I.E., if I make two reverts for a similar case an it is solved on it's own since the rogue activity is ceased by the correspondent editor, then I also involved myself in an edit war, or it is feasible? (it is obvious that justone revert does not fullfill repeatedly)
- Or if it goes farther, I should not perform a third one, but better contact an Admin?
- I should initiate a WP:BRD even immediately after the first revert?
Thanks for further clarification!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: "Repeatedly" means repeating something several times. There is no precise definition of how many times that should be, it depends on the time frame and other factors. But, making 11 similar reverts in several days, as you have done, is obviously "repeatedly". Note that it doesn't matter whether you revert one editor or different editors. If the dispute stops after two reverts, then it is obviously not a problem. The WP:BRD process should be followed whenever it's possible. For example, if you see something problematic in an article, you may remove it and explain your action in the edit summary. But, if another editor reverts your edit, you should not revert him, but you should initiate a discussion. The best place for that is the article talk page. You should clearly explain your position at the talk page and ping the other editor to join discussion. If the other editor does not respond in reasonable time (day or two), only then you may revert him. That is simple effective process. If the other editor (or another editor) reverts you again without joining discussion, that you may notify admins or other editors interested in the topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:SIG MCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SIG MCX. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

u5

I'll defer to your judgement despite the lack of any other contributions from the user in his 5 months except 3 versions of his vanity page. If you're feeling that kindly toward him, his image is tagged for deletion as self-promotion over on commons. for (;;) (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American Maritime Ministry Association

Just wondering why the page North American Maritime Ministry Association was deleted. It is a significant umbrella organization representing more than 50 other organizations in the same non-profit sector. The article was written in a neutral tone and was linked to other articles on Wikipedia. Is it not possible to suggest edits instead of simple deletion? NammaED (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)NAMMAED[reply]

@NammaED: The article was deleted according to the [[WP:A7] criteria. There was nothing in the article to show that this organization is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The best way to show the notability is to cite several reliable independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (see: WP:42). The only source that was cited is organization's own web site (not an independent source). Also, Wikipedia does not allow WP:COI editing. Since you are the Executive Director of the organization, you shouldn't be editing anything related to your organization. By the way, you'll have to change your username because it represents a WP:ROLE account, which is not allowed. I left a message about username change on your talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Duco

Sorry, i dont speak english. but Natalia Ducó is an error. the name real is Natalia Duco (es:Natalia Duco) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osepu (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i dont move this article to Natalia Duco please helpme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osepu (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Osepu: It says Natalia Ducó here and here. Can you show some reliable sources to prove that it's otherwise? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common mistake, but look [7] and see its official website [8]. Also I have the birth certificate registrar of San Felipe in pdf.--Osepu (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank --Osepu (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Procedure

Is there a way to appeal SPI decisions? Specifically, I'm concerned about this SPI that you archived, where the analysis that was the basis for the close does not meaningfully address the most important piece of evidence namely the recreated articles. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Did you try to discuss it with Bbb23 and EdJohnston? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per a comment by Bbb23 on my talk page this is now resolved, and two more accounts are blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piet.delaney's sockpuppetry investigation

I recommend that Piet.delaney be re-instated and that his other account Pete.delaney be block. I have known Piet.delaney for over a decade and am pretty sure that if he had known that multiple accounts are not allowed he would not have created one. I don't see a significant advantage on him having had two accounts . In others words I failed to see the abuse. So in the interest of Internet courtesy and diplomacy I ask that Piet.delaney be unblock.Arradis (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arradis: You should ask blocking administrator (Bbb23). Only WP:checkusers are allowed to undo checkuser blocks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Is User:Sachin66 just another sockpuppet of User:Ravindu Navin, whoever it is seems determined to recreate Maya (2016 film). Needs to be checked out and since you were involved last time. Dan arndt (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I'd suggest that you check out User:Kavindu555 at the same time. Dan arndt (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HellO... what's this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin66 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: I already opened a SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravindu Navin. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arindami34

Thanks for reviewing that case - I'm still learning, of course

The reason I recommended 2 weeks was because of the wanton personal attacks by the sock - but I understand your decision to give 1 week instead. I appreciate your feedback on block lengths, and it's an area where I'll gain some experience. Thanks,

GABgab 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward category names

Appreciate if you would have them moved.--Zoupan 22:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

I saw your comment here. It was my understanding that COI editing is "stongly discouraged", not outright prohibited. Could you please point out where WP:COI says one may not write an article about a topic one is associated with? Whether that's a good idea is another matter entirely, but "not allowed" seems a little stronger than how I interpreted the policy. Huon (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: My understanding is that one shouldn't be doing what is "strongly discouraged". I admit that my wording ("not allowed") is wrong. Anyway, I don't see it being prohibited to ask from the blocked user not to make COI edits in order to be unblocked. As per WP:BP#Conditional_unblock, administrators may, with the agreement of the blocked user, impose conditions when unblocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

  • 13 July 2016: 7,000
  • 1 August 2016: 9,000
  • 7 August 2016: 10,472
  • 16 August 2016: 11,500
  • 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I was previously very active at WP:NPP, but I completely lost interest few months ago after this. User SwisterTwister was reviewing pages en masse, marking several pages per minute as "reviewed". For me, it was obviously wrong and I thought that such a practice makes new page patrolling senseless. But, the community thought that such a way of patrolling is OK. Since then, I don't see a point of patrolling. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Dale Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clifton Wharton. 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) 09:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS for Ikcir

After the guy replied while the ticket was in CU queue it put it back in the awaiting reviewer queue, so I sent it back to CU queue for you, but apparently that also reserved it under my name. I've released it now so you can jump back in and reserve it again. Apologies for the inconvenience! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Thank you for unblocking me Ikcir (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the sockpuppetry tag from my User page?Ikcir (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikcir: OF course. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user Shingling334 and their socks

I have earlier communicated with user Ian.thomson about the socks that got Shingling334 indeffed in the first place, see here. Since Ian seems to be busy in real life, and since you have just recently been looking into further socking, I will report this to you. Shingling334 has repeated their earlier pattern of behaviour: uploading copyvios to Commons and immediately after using an IP address to insert the picture in an article. This time the IP address, 92.28.251.68, was located not in Mersin, Turkey, but in Ipswich, England, which is actually quite funny, given the edit summary of one of the Mersin socks here. Back from holiday back home, one would guess. Talk about digging their own grave. Anyway, that last upload got Shingling334 indeffed also in Commons, so there is not much action to take. Given the history, however, there is a chance that we will see new socks popping up. I will be on the lookout. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: That IP is not active any more, so I don't understand what you want me to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that this one was recent enough to be regarded as still active. If not, sorry for bothering you. (I will, however, be looking out for more socks.) Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: No, it was active for few hours, five days ago, and than was abandoned. That is not ongoing disruption. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Serbian Patriarchs changed again, by user Zoupan.

Last night, in course of 12 minutes (from 00.02 to 00.14) user "Zoupan" made (again) a series of changes, by removing words "Serbian Patriarch" from titles of this pages: Atanasije I, Maksim I, Mojsije I, Pajsije II, Vikentije I. In the same time, he made another, totally different set of changes, by transferring words "Serbian Patriarch" from the title beginning to the title end of this pages: Irinej, Serbian Patriarch, Pavle, Serbian Patriarch, German, Serbian Patriarch, Gavrilo V, Serbian Patriarch, Vikentije II, Serbian Patriarch. Several questions must be raised here. First, there is the question of consistency. Why did user "Zoupan" made two sets of different changes, only he knows, I hope. By making first set of changes, he created titles that are more appropriate for disambiguation pages. By making second set of changes, he divided Serbian Patriarchs into two, so to say "Zoupanian" categories: those who "deserve" to be styled as Serbian Patriarchs, and dose who do not (for some reason, known only to user "Zoupan"). By making such changes he created a situation that needs to be addressed, because we need a standardized form for page titles on Serbian Patriarchs, and that form must include words "Serbian Patriarch" because that was and still is their basic title. Some other questions should be raised here, but I think that recent actions of user "Zoupan" regarding various pages on Serbian Church history speak loudly for themselves. Sorabino (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorabino: As I already said I recommend a centralized discussion on the topic. Remind me if I'm wrong, but there is still no such discussion initiated. The best place for that would be WT:SERBIA or WT:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. If you start such discussion, you should leave notices at talk pages of all affected articles (i.e. articles on Serbian Patriarchs). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to disambiguate. These are the most known (or only notable) people with these names. As for the title, it is never prefixed in English WP. I have already stated this here. Stop with your conspiracy theory. There is no "division".--Zoupan 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of linguistic example sentences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incremental. 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) 11:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pritimoy Paul

If you look at the template it says "This applies to all pages that contain an Articles for Creation template or are located in the Draft namespace." And since the page is located in a draft page, it can be filed under G13 for speedy deletion. Says so here too. GamerPro64 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: WP:G13 is clear: This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts [...], as well as any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. The page that you tagged for speedy deletion was not using the {{AFC submission}} template, so it is not covered by this criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Quick?

Earlier today I tagged Volunteermedia and JamesRichards88 with uw-agf-sock. James' edits started after the last of VM's, so there's no overlap to make it an SPI case. I suspect that my tagging of VM's articles as COI may have prompted a change of account to avoid that taint. James has since removed 3 speedies from VM's articles. Behaviourally I'm sure they're the same person. Quack! Later on (after all the users' edits) you blocked VM for spam & username. Special:Diff/738011767.

I'm on the fence as to where to go from here...

  • Assume sock behaviour in the CSD removal, revert & caution (x3); or
  • Ask for a Quick SPI to confirm the link, then revert & caution (x3); or
  • Start an SPI on the basis of the new account removing speedies & avoiding the restrictions on doing so on one's own articles.

Your advice, pretty please. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the first option. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I opened an investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteermedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchate of Peć

When you moved Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation) to Patriarchate of Peć, it created a whole slew of links to the new dab page (Patriarchate of Peć) that now have to be disambiguated. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, Patriarchate of Peć was the primary topic, and Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation) held the dab page. Now that the primary topic has been moved to Patriarchate of Peć (monastery), Patriarchate of Peć should be a redirect to it, and the dab page should be put back to Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation), with a {{redirect}} hatnote at Patriarchate of Peć (monastery). As a non-admin, I cannot do this swap myself, and I thought I'd ask you before going to WP:RM. — Gorthian (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorthian: I don't agree that the monastery is the WP:primary topic. Take a look at this Google Books search [9]. Among the first five results, one is about the monastery, while four are about the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a consensus on this that you can point me to? I'll gladly take on the disambiguation project if so. — Gorthian (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorthian: Consensus for what? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that it is not the primary topic. — Gorthian (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus as of my knowledge. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you move it back until there is consensus? — Gorthian (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was moved to the current title by Zoupan (diff), not by me. I just moved it back [10] after it was moved to the title "Monastery of Peć" by Sorabino[11]. After that, Sorabino called my move "a good solution" [12]. So, three of us (Zoupan, Sorabino and me) agree to that, and that looks like an implicit consensus to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, I think that user Vanjagenije is right here. On several occasions during past few months we have been discussing various issues about the meanings and common use of the term "Patriarchate of Peć". During discussions, we used search engines for various relevant terms on Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News. The results were quite clear: in English language, the term "Patriarchate of Peć" is commonly used in two different meanings, as a designation for the Patriarchate (1346-1766) and also as a designation for the Monastery. Since page Patriarchate of Peć on English Wikipedia was previously pointing only to the Monastery, that was creating confusion, because in many articles that link was also used in reference to the Patriarchate (1346-1766). In order to resolve all that, 4 steps were made. First, page Serbian Patriarchate of Peć was made for the Patriarchate (1346-1766). Second, term "monastery" was introduced into the title of the page for the Monastery. Then, page Patriarchate of Peć was made into a disambiguation page, pointing equally to the Monastery and the Patriarchate. And finally, links Patriarchate of Peć in all articles were sorted according to the context, and replaced with direct links for the Monastery or the Patriarchate. As I said before, this was a very complex issue, and I think that user Vanjagenije found a very good technical solution, that reduces any possibility of confusion to a minimum. Sorabino (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, Sorabino, quite a process. Thank you for explaining it so thoroughly. And thank you especially for going through and fixing all the links to the new dab page. That was the part I was concerned with. It's far better for subject-knowledgeable editors to fix those than leaving them for members of WP:DPL to sort through. Your efforts are much appreciated! — Gorthian (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Serbs needs immediate Semi-protection.--Zoupan 02:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User: Codename Lisa bit newcomers. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 14:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

= Novak Djoković

Posto znas srpski odnosno hrvatski, odgovoricu ti na istom. Slucajno sam pregledao clanke o Djokovicu i Drazenu Petrovicu. Od vas, isfrustriranih nacionalista normalan covjek ne moze pobjeci ni u virtualnom svijetu. Zbog takvih poput tebe, dva uvodna clanka su bukvalno zatrpana podacima o krvnim zrncima Drazena Petrovica i Novaka Djokovica, vjerovatno dvojice najboljih sportasa sa ovih prostora. Obrisao sam dio o Novaku, a planirao i o Drazenu, koji se odnosi na hrvatsko-crnogorska navodna porijekla prvog, a srpska drugog, jer su POTPUNO NEBITNA za online enciklopediju. Osim imena roditelja i mjesta rodjenja, te vazne informacije o rodbinskoj vezi Drazena Petrovica i Dejana Bodiroge, sva ostala etnička nagadjanja nemaju nikakve potrebe biti gdje jesu i zatrpavati tekstove. Naveo sam i u editu da je navodno etnicko porijeklo nebitno, tako da to JESTE validan razlog za brisanja koja sam poduzeo.


BYXL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was reached for Drazen Petrovic's article as well, I imagine? Great, rapid nationalists in agreement. Later on I intend to come back with some factual references regarding ethnicity, nationality etc... just to "disrupt" your consensus... on both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 00:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one is obsessed by someone's nationality that makes a person a nationalist, and a rabid one. If and when I do explain my position it will be to change the current state of the article, which in itself is a disruption of the consensus reached. Therefore, I'm not threatening, just stating a sequence of events which will most likely follow. My position is that both references regarding origin of Novak's parents (and of Drazen Petrovic, which I guess you have read by now) are redundant and written solely for the purpose of promoting extreme right wing / racist propaganda. Just because a couple of contributors made an agreement on a text doesn't make it an empirical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxl (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moj savjet je takodjer da prihvatite upute koje napisao Byxl, naljutili ste ovom promjenom jako puno ljudi i sigurno je da necete moci da zadrzite clanak uredjen u ovom obliku, posebno iz razloga sto je koncenzus napravljen pod pritiskom nekoliko nacionalista, posebno onog koji se potpisuje sa kavon nesto i koji ne bi ni trebao da sudjeluje u bilo kakvom odlucivanju, ali je konstantnim provociranju usao pod kozu, isto tako sto su ignorirani neki izvori naustrb drugih, posebno sada ako se desi da Novak osvoji US OPEN i kada ljudi skrenu paznju na wiki eng. Djokovic ima ogromnu popularnost i ljudi ga izuzetno cijene u Srbiji, posebno nakon onih poplava prije 2 godine, i sigurno nece biti sretni kada vide da je kao glavni izvor uzeta Slobodna Dalmacija, novine koje imaju posebnu sekciju pod nazivom vlaska posla i ciji je jedini cilj ultra desnicarenje i dizanje tenzija. Bolje je da vratite kako je bilo prije . Evo i moj potpis da me ne mijenjate s drugima MARK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.85.184 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for looking at the article and determining it as not a hoax :) LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user (gordon.re) inquiry

Just inquiring why you blocked user gordon.re. This user is a student in a Fall 2016 course I am teaching that is supported by WikiEd. We have requested that the user be unblocked, but I would like to know why you blocked this account to begin with. Thank you. Amyc29 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amyc29: Because their username is identical to the domain name of a web site, which is not allowed per WP:ORGNAME. I warned them first [13] that they should change their username, but they ignored my warning, so I had to block them. That is the so-called "soft" block, which means that the username is the only reason for block. Since the proposed new username is OK, they will be unblocked soon. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Amyc29 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me

that you sort of made a mess of my edit at User talk:Dorotheailly. An accident I suspect. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: I just added a section title (diff). Looks like it was a mess from the moment you made it (it looked like this: [14]). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps my title, "a reference" got lost when you put your later posting before mine. Who knows? Carptrash (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carptrash: Your title got lost because you wrote it in the edit summary (see [15]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhh.Carptrash (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TarunnoBot

Hey Vanjagenije, Could you please unblock this bot account? Only edit was in the bot namespace and now it has bot flag on bnwikisource so username isn't an issue anymore. Moreover, user confirmed he isn't planning to run this bot on enwp anytime soon :) Cheers, ~ Nahid Talk 20:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: Why would I unblock it if the user has no plans of running it in English Wikipedia? What would be the purpose of unblocking? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because, user just want to avoid this kind of questions in future. ~ Nahid Talk 20:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I unblocked it, although I still don't see any benefit of that. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hi Vanjagenije,

The user Wagemut is continuing disruptive editing despite all warnings. Can you report the user?

Gr. Ferakp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harjinder_Singh_(Kukreja)

Hi Vanjagenijie
You blocked the creator of this page Harwy134 (talk · contribs) as a likely stock of a banned editor. Should this page be deleted on that basis? I strongly suspect they have continued editing it as an IP too. 220 of Borg 12:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I deleted that page. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starship9000 appears to be back, editing the same pages as previous, including Windseeker, plus adding racist stuff to articles, including adding "anti-white racism" classification to the Barbary Slave Trade Article. The sock puppet appears to be Marvelous Spider-Man for the posts start after the last sock puppet investigation was completed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marvellous_Spider-Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate194534 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another new IP sock

Just bringing this to your attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WildChild666/Archive Mlpearc (open channel) 17:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Vanjagenije. 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)

Article deletion and Photo

Good day im refering to my new article of klea pineda im contesting for its deletion that article i made was my nephew a filipino young actress that won on a phlipine celebrity show known starstruck thank you and more power... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaijhon25 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

djokovic

I was deleting the part about Djokovic's parents' (Montenegrin-Croat) ethnicity. Firstly, the claim is unsupported as it's reference is some Croatian tabloid newspaper,so I'm really amazed that such a source would be included in official Wikipedia article. Secondly, in Montenegro itself there is a dispute about the existence of Montenegrin ethnicity as about 30% of Montenegrins declare themselves as Serbs, in which group Novak's father belongs, as he always declared himself to be a Serb. Novak's mother never declared herself to be Croatian, so there's that problem as well. Finally, I didn't rewrite that part of the article, because I thought that deleting it is a far better option, because in a state that this article is currently in there's going to be an endless editing and rewriting war which doesn't need to happen at all. Azarapat8 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Azarapat8: You edited the article in direct violation of a consensus that was reached after lengthily discussion (see: Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother). You are free to discuss the issue on the talk page, to seek WP:closure review etc., but you should not edit contrary to the consensus. There will be no "editing and rewriting war". We have tools to stop that (like wp:page protection and WP:block). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response at SPI

Since apparently pinging doesn't always work properly on SPI pages, I figured I'd also notify you here that I've responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profooty33. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have made too many recent login attempts. Please wait 5 minutes before trying again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.79.151 (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New messages

Hello, Vanjagenije. You have new messages at GXXF's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can I copy your main pages source to make the {{Main Pages}} template? GXXF T • C 21:52,9/26/2016

@GXXF: Yes, but per Wikipedia's WP:licensing, you have to WP:attribute it to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GXXF: Just a second. What do you mean by "my main pages"? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: It's your /Mein page, here's the code I will use:

{| align=center style="{{Round corners}}; border: 3px solid {{#if:{{{bordercolorname|}}}; padding: 6px; background: {{#if:{{{backgroundcolorname|}}}; width: 765px" |width=11%| <center>{{click|image=Nuvola filesystems folder home.svg|link=User:{{PAGENAME}}|width=50px|height=50px}}</center> |width=11%| <center>{{click|image=Icona parla di Wikipedia.svg|link=User talk:{{PAGENAME}}|size=50x45px}}</center> |- | <center>'''[[User:{{PAGENAME}}|<font color="{{#if:{{{fontcolor|}}}">Main]]'''</center> | <center>'''[[User talk:{{PAGENAME}}|<font color="{{#if:{{{fontcolor|}}}">Talk page]]'''</center> |} Thanks. GXXF T • C 23:23,9/26/2016

(talk page watcher) @GXXF: Please fix your signature. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now fixed it. GXXF T • C 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I created it, check {{main Pages}}, needs repair! GXXF T • C 18:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GXXF: I'm not sure it's a good idea to create a page for your personal use in the WP:template namespace. You should move it to your user namespace (like my page which is located in my user space User:Vanjagenije/Meni). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: How I can gain the ''template editor'' permission? I need to edit Userbox template deleteing the {{#invoke}} magic word! GXXF T • C 18:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you do that!? You should discuss desired change on the talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

78.63.161.19 and Lycoperdon

Remember the sockpuppet incidents about Lycoperdon? Apparently, this user is now editing as his 78.63.161.19 to edit the same articles. This is considered block evasion which violates Wikipedia rules. 174.113.214.250 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, open the WP:SPI case and provide some evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan

Zdravo Vanja, Filip ovdje. Ja sam Bosanska izbjeglica, proveo vecinu zivota u Kanadi. I was just hoping to discuss my case with you, human to human, kao ljudi. I was a new editor and I tried to add my hard research to invention related articles pertaining to the Balkan region. I was almost instantly shunned. My edits were always sourced and intellectually stated. Even to this day, as a sock puppet, I find many of my edits readded by unbiased users stating "sock puppetry or not, this is solid information." I believe that my edits were never destructive, however, I did engage in edit warring with biased and opinionated veteran users which got me into trouble, but in all fairness, I never understood how the community works or I wouldn't have behaved that way. Since then I have only a few times engaged in full blown warring but only when the opposer was infinitely out of proportion. In the end I lost anyway. Nobody is even allowed to make a list for Serbian inventions and discoveries, while everybody else's list builds in abundance. It's like Belgrade throughout history. Imperial cities build while Belgrade is leveled to the ground. Please Vanja. Molim te. Posavjetuj me. Ti si uciteljica. Tetka mi je uciteljica. Uvjek sam htjeo biti ucitelj ali sam otisao drugim smjerom i otvorijo kafanu. Cao. Hvala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.49.25 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked. You shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I am one of administrators here, and out duty is to stop blocked editors from editing. I don't care whether your edits are sourced or not. Blocked editors shouldn't be editing as long as they are blocked. It's as simple as that. If you think you shouldn't be blocked, Wikipedia offers several ways to appeal your block. As far as I know, you never even tried to appeal. I don't know what we have to talk about. You are the one who doesn't want to talk. You never tried to discuss your block, you just keep creating socks. There is nothing to talk about. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sock

Hi, messaging you since you were the last admin to respond to the unblock request at User talk:Raahulpk, looks like he's back with a new account just using the biz name this time, right back to spamming the same info: User talk:Shopkop. Thought I'd bring it to your attention. JamesG5 (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You stole my picture to delete it!

You can't do this to the picture of Fifi (Peanuts).jpg and I have to make the copyrights. You can't do that! You're a cheater! You stole my picture to delete it! Because, I'm going to sue you for every single sake! And that's why but you were never, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER MAKE THE DOLLAR OF THE 99 CENTS FOREVER OF THIS!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlj1989 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuji Ohagi's page should be maintained

Dear Vanjagenije, Thank you for your message on Yasuji Ohagi's page. I would like to note here that I am convinced the page should be maintained. I understand that on the creation of the page I didn't provided much information on the artist, but he is a contemporary leader classical guitarist not only in Japan, but in the world. Examples of this are his successful concerts around the world including Japan, US, France, Belgium, Canada, Cuba, Colombia, Taiwan, Korea, Russia, and more than 12 albums. I hope you reconsider and the page can be reopened. In addition, Ohagi not only has being student of great masters, but has inspired new generation of guitarists and classical guitar lovers with his music. He has also being jury to several international classical guitar competitions, including the Barrios Worldwide competition and the Taiwan International Guitar Festival & Competition. I know that I could write a better article; but I can do so when the article is reopened. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisbgomezl (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luisbgomezl: Hi! Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria called WP:NOTABILITY (and specific criteria for musicians called WP:NMUSIC). The only way to satisfy that criteria is to cite several reliable, independent sources that significantly cover the subject (see WP:42). The article, as you wrote it, did not cite any such source. Also, among the links that you provided here, most do not count as independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Simple concert announcements and similar are not considered to have "significant coverage". Also, texts writeen by the artist himself, his recording label or his promoters are not considered "independent". I undeleted the article and moved it User:Luisbgomezl/Yasuji Ohagi (we call that to WP:Userfy). You can continue working on the article, and I strongly advice you to use the WP:Articles for creation process for reviewing the article. Just remember: if the subject of the article is not WP:NOTABLE, that no amount of work can make the article acceptable. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear :@Vanjagenije:, Thank you for your response and for restoring the page. I have updated the page with available references. I also submitted the draft for review, as suggested. Thank you again!

Orphaned non-free image File:Evil Anal DVD.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Slutty and Sluttier.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing College of the Holy Spirit CDES, Vanjagenije.

Unfortunately BU Rob13 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Unreviewing merely because I removed the CSD tag while discussing on the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on BU Rob13's talk page.

Error in a SP report I filed

I filed a report for "janagewen", it should have been "Janagewen". And I see I'm not supposed to move it. So, I annoy a clerk. Sorry. Jeh (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ask question

Dear Vanjadenije, may I keep on editing? and can you help me with the page which is considered for deletion? because i have evaluated the references and the author is notable. can you visit please? thank you. Jacob20162016 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob20162016: Whether the subject is notable or not will be decided by the deletion discussion, not by you. Article may be edited during the discussion, there is no provision against that. I just have to note that you will probably be blocked soon for WP:meatpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but why? Jacob20162016 (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob20162016: Because you teamed up with several other people to !vote the same way at the deletion discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not how should I prove it? Jacob20162016 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC) that is really unfair. So can I register another name? or ID? but it might happen again. believe me I really did not do it. I helped. but in return blocking me ! till when will I found out I am blocked or not?Jacob20162016 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob20162016: No. If you are blocked, that means that you (as a person) are blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:Block evasion is not allowed. Creating new accounts will only make it worse. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading back over this case, I realized that I failed to mention that not only do the accounts share the same IP, they are also the only three accounts using that address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Árva county

Dear Vanjagenije, as a subject of history, I kindly ask your help/attendance again. I see a possibly vandalizing atempt under a the pretext of WP:English WP:naming conventions, although having a long experience of contemporary naming conventions met with countles articles we never met usually such conflict that was now provocated and it rarely happened in the past by some anonimus or other user's with a clear anti-Hungarian aim. Recently almost all Hungarian names were deleted that is heavily outreagous regarding an article that is about a historical Hungarian comitatus, etc. My negotiation attempts did hot have a result yet, the subject initiated two reverts so I used the article talk page I kindly ask you to read through, and I've just reset the former state of the article by adding more contenporary names as a proposal, but I am afraid the subject will again continue with reverts and I want ot avoid to be pulled again in a provocation, in case I ask you to protect the article in that form when Hungarian names are also present and persuade the subject for building a new consensus in the talk page instead of continous reverting. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR: I'm glad to see that you two engaged in talk page discussion, I will be watching it and comment if needed. The conditions for wp:full protection are not met. You should continue discussing and try to reach wp:consensus. I also have to tell you that you should stop calling other users "anti-Hungarian" whenever they do not agree with you. You have to always WP:assume good faith. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know WP:AGF. Since with current user we engaged an other talk page near a month, and also in other pages/cases in his manifestations always negative came up regarding Hungary realated issues, I have great concerns, anyway as you see I am tired that instead of quality editing and I have to face with such cases. Thank you for your attendance! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

SPI archive

I see that you archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one, but there doesn't seem to be a link from there to the archive page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: You should WP:purge the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DEBORAH1111

Looking at this makes me think, at best, this individual doesn't grasp our policies and conventions. You know more about the situation than I, so I'll stay out of the way while you take whatever action(s) you deem necessary. You'd probably not like the solution I'm considering. Regards, Tiderolls 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet tags

Hey there, over the last day or so I've noticed you re-tagging some of the sock accounts I've already tagged, even though you're not actually changing the information (e.g. [16]). Am I doing something wrong? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: No, it's probably because I'm using the SPI helper script. It's easier to just tag them all then to go through all the socks and tag only those that are not already tagged. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought it was probably something like that. The script doesn't seem to be working for me, I'll look into it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

You may be interested in this discussion regarding a user you have unblocked. Sentence from their edit "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012, when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO." and from source "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012, when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Vanjagenije, thank you for doing all you could to support with the situation I found myself in. Your guidance on how to navigate Wikipedia policies and on how to contact the Arbitration Committee is greatly appreciated. Thankfully, the issue was resolved. Sthubbar (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a note

Hope this is okay! :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grb opštine Zvečan

Samo da ti kažem da je autor grba optšine Zvečan Radosav Janićijević.Sonioa ✉ 14:00, 26 October 2016(UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block user

Can you block 200.58.81.27? He's reverting a edit multiple times. GXXF T • C 18:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Undertrialryryr sock

FYI: [17][18]

Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_14&oldid=1092091104"