User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

question on user

I caught abhi in some serious lies and POV edits. I noticed you mentioned on their talk page that they edited under a different name and was topic banned. Do you know the previous name and what was the topic? Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: That username was Neo, and here are the details of their topic ban; AE thread. That userpage is now a redirect to their current one; if you go to the redirect page, and look at its history, you can see all the other antics they got up to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Slaps self with trout. Look at abhi's user page and I get the info. slap. Sometimes I'm very slow as my request painfully points out. They are not editing pages that fall within their topic ban. That was my main concern I had. Looks like they didn't learn from the first go around, sigh. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Hehe, no worries. Done that sort of thing myself. I get the feeling, though, that they have only left that message there to avoid looking like a sock; it is not voluntary. And no, they have certainly not learned, although the t-ban was only for three months, so it has expired. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Vanamonde for your message from the 27th May. One of the master degree lecturers from Camborne School of Mines is about to carry out testing in the Loe pool by means of 'sounding'. Personally, I do not believe in any harbour or port in Helston until well after 1014. While evidences have been discovered in around 1981 during excavations were made under St. Johns Road, Helston, when they dug 15 feet deep for drainage = sea level, and the findings were accurate and substancial, the citations thereof are not acceptable to the Wikipedia; because, apart from Toy's history, there is such little documented evidence. Toy was as accurate an historian as any one you need for citation. In his history of Helston he states that around 30 feet under the new cattle market beds of killas and possibly shingle was found under the submerged dead forest. This conveys that Helston inlet would have been favourable for a port in the time of the Phoenician traders, but is no evidence whatever of a port at that time. The dead forest that is part of that under Mounts Bay would obviously have to be considerably lower than sea level, or else any ships would have become partially entangled by any strong branches. Absence of records of Helston shipping does not, in itself, prove that shipping or marine transport was not in use during the 12th century. Such records that would have been written before Caxton's printing, could have been lost or destroyed, just as the earliest known name for the Loe as 'Lo' might also have been lost.

Kind regards,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

content fork

Re: [1]

I notice how you deleted the link to an article that has been in existence for over a decade and replaced the link with your own new content fork.

I have requested that the article you created be merged with the existing american terrorism article.

Thewhitebox (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-GA suggestions for Bharatiya Janata Party

I've left some 'Pre-GA suggestions' for you on the talk page. I came to know about your nomination only recently and am impressed by your work there. I've done several GA reviews (on relatively easy subjects) and feel that this will make a good candidate: just answer the reviewers suggestions and don't hesitate to question any if you feel it's beyond the GA criteria. GAs are not as strict as you think, just look at the Good article criteria and What Good articles are not. Unfortunately, there is a serious shortage of reviewers compared to the amount of work needed to be reviewed, so this will take long. Just concerning our Indian article candidates, at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, the oldest unreviewed nomination is three months ago...so be prepared to wait (unless you get lucky). I'm quite excited about this myself and will follow the review. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd Comment in Narendra Modi article

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

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

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

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

User:Manveermalhi

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Reasons for revoking edits

Hey,

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

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

I look forward to your response.

Best,

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

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

Are you online right now?

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

POV editing

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

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

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

I would like to add this:

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

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

citation for Broner

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

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

FAM167A

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

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

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

Notification

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

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

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

Don't take it personally - it does not mean I don't find you a valuable editor or that I want to pursue any procedure on the arbitration page. Actually, I think you're a pretty good wikipedian. It just seems to be just an (incomplete) list of all editors in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan articles, and unlike DS, I'm not planning to become active on that page. I was asking myself the same question here [2] and will further detail my reply after I get a reply to my question on this to DS. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ukrainian civil war

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

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

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

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

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

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

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

Please explain?

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

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

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

About that piano

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

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

Good work

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

Welcome to STiki!

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

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

Modi article

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

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

Yeah, sorry bout' that.

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

Bladesmulti

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

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

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

RSS

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

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

Indic Script

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

PHaradise

Hello Vanamonda93

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

AlpHaTalie

Seen. Dating for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Seen. Dating for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What do you say about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Indopug and @Vanamonde93:

Hullo, Thanks a lot for your answers and sorry for the very late reply Just wanted to point out that again the Indo-script issue is resurfacing

For instance, Modi's page still doesn't have his name in either Hindi in Devanagari script or Gujerati in the corresponding script BUT one of his ministers Nirmala Sitharaman has her name in Tamil...while she was born in Andhra Pradesh, so firstly if your rule was applied to everyone, there shouldn't be any indo-script on her article too and if any indo-script was tolerated then why Tamil and not Telegu, the language of Andhra Pradesh, is it because she is culturally Tamil?

Like before the solution I proposed is either you accept ALL scripts or refuse ALL of them, but not have a policy of refusing Indo-scripts and accepting persian script or arabic one or chinese one at the same time, this amounts to DOUBLE STANDARDS, sorry for writing it in capital, but it's my point since the beginning

I just read the page on Maryam Mirzakhani, who recently won the Fields Medal and her name is in Farsi at the beginning of her page

Actually the ban on Indo-script seems to applie according to the "popularity" of the subject, Modi being very well known, the ban is effective, his minister, Sitharaman being lesser well known, well the ban is ignored....this is far from being coherent!

My solution as always is to stick to NATIONAL language first, for Sitharaman have her name in Hindi in Devanagari script and then in Tamil for the cultural ties and leave out Andhra Pradesh despite it being her state of birth

As for why it matters to have indic-scripts? Well why does it matter to write François Hollande with an "ç"? Why does it matter to write the FRENCH version of Napoléon with the "é" at the start of his page??

No one finds it unusual to write french names with "é", "è" or "ç" on the english version of Wikipedia so why find it unusual to have indic scripts on the same english version?

This debate on whether we have to ban or accept indic scripts is an indo-indian debate with nationalists and anti nationalists fighting each other while others who are writting article for French, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese personalities have already resolved the problem by accepting these non english scripts

In the case of Napoleon, you can't say it was easy...the guy was corsican and guess what? Those writing his page wrote his name in corsican TOO!

So please, this is not an unimportant subject, this is clear double standards applied to indic scripts and shouldn't be dealt lightly by wikipedia

Thanks in advance

@Manish2542:, the fact that a policy is not uniformly enforced is not a reason to end the policy. WP:NPOV is violated frighteningly often; does that mean we get rid of it? Certainly not. Moreover, sticking to the "National language" raises serious NPOV issues as well. In India, for instance, there are 22 "official" languages, and no National language; so which would you use? I agree that for the sake of neutrality, no other scripts should be included in the lead; but this is a larger scale problem, and not one that I have the time or inclination to deal with. I attempt to enforce this myself where I can (I just dealt with Nirmala Sitharaman) but universal enforcement is hardly my obligation. If you wish to have something done about this policy, I suggest you post at WP:INB, or the talk page of the policy, or some such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vadamonde93:

Steven Chu was born in MISSOURI, I repeat, United States Missouri, his name is both in Chinese and in Pinyin but when I'm trying to edit Manjul Bhargava's page to include a name in Hindi, it is being deleted, seriously, why? Is this some form of unspoken racism that everybody seems to enforce blindly?

This double standards would never have been tolerated for any other script, but we are expected to enforce it when it comes to Indic- scripts

As far as national language is concerned, the issue is not that difficult, there are 22 recognised languages but only two national ones, English and Hindi, it is plainly written in the Indian Constitution

There's no official language in Mauritius but the name of Paul Raymond Bérenger a former prime minister is written in FRENCH with an "é" in Bérenger, because he is from the franco-mauritian community, how do you explain that? I thought this was a purely english wikipedia?

I'll try to deal with this issue at WP:INP

Thanks for your answers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kirkpatrick

I was waiting for an ISBN number to be assigned for that play, Her Excellency. I think it should be out in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.44.157 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

24.189.44.157, the source that you must provide need not be the play itself; it can be a news item, for instance, so long as it satisfies the criteria at WP:RS. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Modi possible GA nom in near future?

Hi. Hope you're well. I hope I'm not being overly optimistic or tempting fate but I've noticed that the Modi article has recently become quite stable since his election. Maybe it's an opportunity to push for GA? Would be nice to have the BJP and the current prime minister articles as GAs. I don't see any major issues currently with it but the article does need a thorough copyedit. Am I crazy? Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cowlibob, I agree that this should be a high priority for turning it into a GA. However, I'm not sure that it's ready right now. I just skimmed it again, and apart from copyediting, here are some of the issues that need fixing IMO;

1) A lot of the article is written in the vein of "X says this, Y says the opposite." This is most noticeable in the riots and development sections, but also elsewhere. Apart from the fact that this raises issues of due weight, it makes the article less readable.

2) The development section, especially, has serious issues; it's currently framed as a debate, which is also problematic, I think. Ideally, it should just describe the actual ground reality, rather than opinion; namely, that growth and Urban infrastructure have been strengthened, HDI and rural areas have suffered, privatisation has again meant growth in some areas and trouble in others, etc.

3) Beyond just very basic copy-editing, a lot of the article is in Indian colloquial English, rather than "normal" Indian English (which is very close to the British version.) Stuff like "Clean chit," "Star performer," etc, etc.

Finally, I think the fact that the article is stable is not so much because it is perfect as because it is nearly impossible to make changes to it. So here is an idea; why don't one of us copy it over into our userspace, where we can work out a lot of these issues in peace (and I'd be more than happy to do it there; its just that virtually any change to the main article ends with an edit war.) When we're happy with some sections, we'd be in a much better position to tweak the original. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, userspace is best. I've moved over a copy of the most recent one I worked on minus protection template. User:Cowlibob/Modidraft. Agreed article in terms of emphasis is small on facts and large on opinions. Cowlibob (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All right then, let's give this a shot! Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

El Mozote massacre picture on targeted killing page

I removed the picture because it is about a different subject than the article. According to the targeted killing article - "Targeted killing (also known as Selective assassination) is the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield." The El Mozote massacre was not selective assassination of an individual, it was a massacre. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Edward321 all right, although I disagree. The killing there was premeditated, it was outside judicial procedure, etc. Life would have been a lot easier if you had said this in your edit summary, though.

Also, I agree with the IP that even if this is not the appropriate picture, a picture of an incident of such a killing is far more useful than a picture of the means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The killing at El Mozote was premeditated, but it was not a "selective assassination" or the "premeditated killing of an individual". As noted by myself and another editor on the talk page, the picture makes perfect sense on the massacre article. Other pictures certainly could make sense on the targeted killing article. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Osama pic

That was the only picture I could find that made it clear the person was the subject of a targeted killing. If you feel it is not NPOV, I'm perfectly fine with any other picture of people killed in a targeted killing. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that picture could be a poster child (pun intended) for pro-American POV on that page. It says "GOT HIM" in 6 inch letters, for god's sake. I appreciate the effort you made to find it, but that is only further hurting the case the IP and I were making. I'll try and find something myself, but I've never been very good at finding stuff in commons. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried checking the Lillehammer affair, but found no pics. Edward321 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ABISY

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Do not templatize the regular. You are the one who is keen on reverting me in seconds. I have added content and reference to the article. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you at AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Taliban

To add the United States as an ally in the infobox just doesn't make any sense, as the U.S supported the Taliban through Pakistan. They never outright declared their support for the Taliban. The highest degree of U.S approval for the Taliban was to simply do nothing, i.e in 1995 when the Taliban took over Herat.

Adding Pakistan as an ally in the infobox is factually correct, as it is not only indisputable that the Pakistani government supported the Taliban and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (They were one of only three countries who recognized the Taliban regime), but it has been rumored that they still support the Taliban through the ISI and Haqqani network. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87; there are sources in the article documenting US support. It included arms, training, and passive political support. If you wish to dispute this, take it up on the talk; my edit merely made the infobox consistant with the body. Also, you are currently on 4 reverts; self-revert now, else you will be reported to WP:AN3 for breaching WP:3RR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I look at the Taliban article, go to the Sub-heading 'United States' and this is what I read, which I will bold for your convenience, seeing as how you struggle to process English:

"The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools; the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women. In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia."

That's the only section in the entire article that details the U.S and the Taliban relationship pre 2001 invasion. Notice the term "support". That does not mean they allied with them. Where is all the information citing what you said "It included arms, training, and passive political support." ? If there is, then add in yourself provided you have a cited source which explicitly states so. Passive political support is not justifiable enough to make the United State an ally of the Taliban. That is exactly what I stated before "The highest degree of U.S approval for the Taliban was to simply do nothing, i.e in 1995 when the Taliban took over Herat."

The fact that you then report me for vandalism is just hilarious. I've contributed more to that article than you could hope to do within One whole life time inside your parents basement. Argue all you want, doesn't mean that you're right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, I have no intention of reporting you for vandalism; If you do not self-revert within the next few minutes, I will report you for breaching WP:3RR, ie edit-warring. I do not intend to discuss the content while you are sitting on four reverts to keep your version of the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've self-reverted back. Don't expect that U.S flag to be there for too long, hey? :) StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 about bloody time; I had already composed my AN3 report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 also, a glance at the article history shows that your contributions to the article are trivial at best; so what is that last offensive paragraph supposed to mean? Are you asking for an SPI to be filed or what? Furthermore, I suggest you read WP:NPA, and lay off the insults; it will do you no good whatsoever. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you provide a convincing reason not to, I will be filing an SPI at some point. For what it's worth though, here's my rebuttal; the list of "Allies" is not based on any formal definition, it is based on material/political support. Nowhere near all of those organizations formally supported the Taliban, least of all Pakistan. And US material support is well documented in the article itself; see ref 9, for starters. If you wish to extend the period that I have inserted, so that it covers the 1980s, I have no issues with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Within that list of "allies", it is fact that that following organisations/movements support the Taliban or have a mutual relationship with them: The Haqqani network, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Are you serious in saying that Pakistan never "formally supported the Taliban", whereas the United States did? I'm astounded. Pakistan helped train, arm, airlift Taliban fighters, with as you said "passive political support" from the United States, which still doesn't have any justification for saying that the U.S openly allied with the Taliban. Any assistance the U.S happened to have given the Taliban came through Pakistan. It doesn't even make sense to refer to them as an "ally", even during the periods you listed 1994-1996. Unless you made a separate category labeled "puppet", than it should keep the U.S out of it. My reasons for this? The U.S saw no reason to offer support for the Taliban beyond that of Washington's own agenda. An excerpt from the article "The United States supported the Taliban through its ally in Pakistan between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western. Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal."' To be an ally, the feeling must be mutual. You can't support someone that has a fundamental dislike for you, (Taliban are mainly rural Pashtun tribesman that have an inherent dislike for all things foreign, Soviet communism and American liberalism/democracy alike) and call them an ally. That's something else entirely. Had the U.S truly been an ally of the Taliban, they would not have launched missiles on the Islamic Emirate in 1998, or have stopped all support by 1996. That's called the U.S playing God in international politics, or imperialism.

Pakistan on the other hand had no qualms over their relationship until 2001, and even in 2014 you still here of Pakistan rumored to support the Taliban to exert their influence in Afghanistan. Taliban leaders today can deny it all they want, the fact is when their movement was fledgling in 1994 during which the Hezb-e Islami under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar attacked the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus shifted support from Gulbuddin to the more successful Taliban.

To add the U.S as an ally even in the 1980's doesn't make any sense, as the Taliban was founded in 1994. The Mujahideen of the 80's were not the successors to the Taliban, as they were culturally, religiously diverse and united over the soviet invasion. In fact many leading Mujahideen fighters from that era went on to found the Northern Alliance in the 1990's which, unlike the Taliban did receive U.S public support and backing, and both had a vested interest in getting help from and helping one another. See Ahmad Shah Massoud StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, please read WP:TLDR and WP:INDENT. Second, your entire thesis is based on a certain definition of "ally," which at this point is purely OR; can you show that the list in that particular infobox is based on this definition? Where does it say that "the Taliban accepts and welcomes the support of all organizations in this list;" you see what I am getting at? I have no interest in extending the period through the 1980s; I merely mentioned it, because that would be the logical conclusion of what you were saying. I am well aware that they were founded in 1994, thank you very much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde, the accusation that the US armed and trained the Taliban is a serious one, not supported by any reliable sources I know of or mentioned in the article text. I assume you are referring to US support for Afghan rebels (some of which the US later supported against the Taliban) resisting the Soviet occupation long before the Taliban existed, but if you have sources that support your specific allegations you should present them. "Who is Responsible for the Taliban?" makes the case that the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda because they needed their help in the fight against mujahidin commanders like Ahmad Shah Masud, who actually received US support and training. (As for the notion that the US supported al Qaeda: "The agency directed around three billion dollars to the Afghan mujahideen during the war against the Soviets, but there is no evidence that any of that money went to the Afghan Arabs, nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle...The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence".) Far from being an ally, the US considered various ways to overthrow the Taliban under Clinton and Bush and finalized a plan to do so unless the Taliban met certain conditions on September 10, 2001. Incidentally, does anyone here know what support the US supposedly provided through Pakistan? I'm curious as to the language used in Rashid's book, as "support" can mean many things.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, sparring partner. I'm rather busy at the moment, but I will read through your post at some point. Really quick, though, the dispute is only about the period 1994-96, when Rashid says the US supported them. Not after that; so all that stuff about 2001 is irrelevant, I know damn well they were sworn enemies then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at 25 Cents FC's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello sir. I have respond. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yallapragada Sudharshan Rao

Hi Vanamonde93, I need your help here on BLP Noticeboard. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

made page on the wrong language setting

hi! I intended to make a page on italian care the people but i made a mistake and edit in on the english one. the text was in italian but the title in english because it is an english name. so the page has been translated in english and the title in italian... i made a new page on the italian wiki, but how can i delete the wrong page? or at least attach it at the italian one with the right name? the page is care the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ela caffein (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ela caffein, that is an understandable mistake to make. The easiest way to do this is to place {{Db-g7}} on the top of the page, and create the Italian page in the usual way. See WP:CSD for further details. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

India Development and Relief Fund

I thoought you might be interested to see this special issue on IDRF: [4]. Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram also seems to be a part of this network, and it is somehow related to ABISY. Uday Reddy (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, apologies, caught up elsewhere. Looks interesting; will give it a read. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism Israel section

Hi,

I did explain why Israel was removed. There is a big difference between war and terror. In order for a country to be a state that supports terrorism it should support (financially or military) terror organizations. So Israel isn't "State-sponsored terrorism", regardless if you agree with it or not. Israel is at war but doesn't support private terrorist groups. So writing what somebody said with no basis or knowledge is irrelevant and makes Wikipedia look unbalanced and unscientific.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leosard (talk • contribs)

@Leosard: That is not the point. All we are saying is that "King so-and-so has said so-and-so, in which he described Israel as committing state-sponsored terrorism." Removing this because of the reasons you have given would be classic original research. It is sourced; so unless you find a source which says that he didn't say that, the content stays. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Taliban again.

Because the sex slavery is already explained further down, and certain Taliban commanders didn't sell them just for sex, that is why "slavery" is more appropriate. Sex slavery is too exclusive. I thought I had mentioned my edit in the Human Rights Abuse section? I had two versions of the Taliban opened, so I might have combined the two edits in the one version. As for adding space, does it affect the character length of the edit if I hold down space bar? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, the only place I can find "sex slavery" is in the sentence which you changed and I reverted. If you combined edits accidentally I can understand, but I suggest you discuss the removal first. And yes, the spaces do affect the character length, so far as I am aware. Why do it, in any case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sex slavery is mentioned in the sense that individual Taliban commanders collaborated with the foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda to kidnap women in instances and sell them into some form of slavery. For example, in the article it reads "Officials from relief agencies say, the trail of many of the vanished women leads to Pakistan where they were sold to brothels or into private households to be kept as slaves" The term brothels is synonymous with some form of sexual servitude, which can be easily inferred. Another example, "The more desirable among them were selected and taken away..." they were obviously selected based on their physical traits, implying a certain basis for their slavery. There are other references in the article that point to sex slavery without actually mentioning 'sex slavery'. If you want it left, that's fine. As for the repetitive use of the space bar, that habit, and repeatedly tapping the caps lock, have just entered my daily routine using the keyboard. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not here; discuss it on the talk. If something is sourced, then changing it to a situation where inference is required is likely to be contentious. That particular section only discusses traficking in the context of sex slavery; so there is no problem of generality, because all that first paragraph is required to do is summarize the section below. Also, indent your posts, for goodness sake. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at WT:Igloo.
Message added 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The load issue has been fixed. Thanks for reporting it! -- Kangaroopowah 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

August GOCE blitz

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 891 words during the Guild of Copy Editors blitz! Miniapolis 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

---

Old data

Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.

---

New Data

The bolded text below is an exact quote from Raghavan et al .On a wide scale 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from a population basal to modern day western Eurasians. And the western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans. A 24,000 year old sample showed a line (haplogroup R* y-dna desendend of QR y-dna ) that is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA. 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Changes to Noam Chomsky Page

Hi Can you please add to the Personal Life section for Noam Chomsky that

"Noam Chomsky married Luisa Valéria Galvão-Chomsky in Concord, Massachusetts, on March 27, 2014.

Also please add that Chomsky's latest book Master's of Mankind was released by Haymarket books in September of 2014. http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Masters-of-Mankind . Haymarket will also be reprinting twelve titles from Chomsky's backlist to include On Power and Ideology and Fateful Triangle. http://www.haymarketbooks.org/bio/noam-chomsky

Thanks!

Rory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suasponte3 (talk • contribs)

@Suasponte3:; Hi there. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I am not sure that the content is appropriate, based on current evidence. Basically, I am not seeing a reliable source talking about where the marriage occurred. Also, the publication probably falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I hope this makes sense. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

what about the books? Can you add those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suasponte3 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Suasponte3:; It was the books I was referring to when I mentioned WP:NOTNEWS. He has published hundreds of books; why do these deserve mention? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for my case.

The source does not appear to mention the terms maternal or paternal. Not true you must not understand genetics well and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages

which means that

and the Y chromosome of MA-1 (R*) is basal to modern-day western (R)Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages (Q) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html#supplementary-information 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) and Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014106a.html K2b is not associated with East asia, it is associated with Melanesia do you want to add that also? 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been dealt with by a more experienced editor than myself; if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He has been appointed as the governor of Indian state of Rajasthan under the Narendra Modi government. Source- PTI

Dear Vanamonde, I was unaware about the fact that I have to name the source. In the Kalyan Singh edit page, after your mail arrived at my mail box, I re-edited the same and posted on the Wikipedia.... Please have a look. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Dealt with when posted. Dating for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Requests page

Hi Vanamonde93, I see you've got two articles—Corfu Channel case and Dattatraya Parchure—marked with the {{Working}} template. Please remove one of these templates so we know which article you're currently copy-editing. You seem to have finished the second article since your last edit was at 07:54 on 25 August 2014‎ (UTC); If I don't hear from you in a day or so from my timestamp, I'll archive this as being finished. I'd normally issue a {{GOCE-ab}} template but it seems to me you've just forgotten to mark the latter article {{Done}}. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: yes, indeed, I had forgotten to mark Dattatraya Parchure with {{done}}. Thanks for the message. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! If Parchure is done with copyediting doesn't the group add {{GOCE}} on the talk page? You probably missed it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha:; yes, I missed it. I will do so now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And  Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

I was just messing around to test how wikipedia works. Sorry for troubles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.21.104 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Praveen Togadia dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the Praveen Togadia dispute, concluding that other dispute resolution processes should be attempted first. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes related to the article of Bharatiya Janata Party

The reason I've reverted your edit under See also section, because you have used wrong format i.e. Portal bar|Conservatism|India|Politics by using that format we can't see the portal box under see also in the article it goes blank. Correct format to show portal box is using Portal|Conservatism|India|Politics. HemmyHighlander 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemmyHighlander (talk • contribs)

@HemmyHighlander:; thanks, fixed. The bar is far more elegant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the portal now. Why did you change that? Can you explain? It has gone blank. HemmyHighlander 20:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I can see it just fine. You must be having browser issues. You could ask somebody more experienced with these issues than myself. Tell me, can you see the portals here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Greetings! My sincerest apologies sir. I wasn't aware of that. What should I do for what I've written be included, sir? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonekekek (talk • contribs) 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bonekekek, greetings. Everybody makes mistakes to begin with, and I'm glad that you want to learn from yours. What you need to do, is to find reliable sources that support the content you want to add, and then cite them. Hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much sir! What if there are no references at all, sir? I'm trying to make this the only reference if possible. Thank you very much!

P.S.

Sir/Ma'am, with all due respect, I would like to correct the date of establishment of PNPA stated in your secound sentence, first paragraph. Thank you very much!

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1977/pd_1184_1977.html http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1990/ra_6975_1990.html http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9263_2004.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonekekek (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)