Open main menu

User talk:Vanamonde93


WikiCup 2018 November newsletterEdit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

  1.   Courcelles (submissions)
  2.   Kosack (submissions)
  3.   Kees08 (submissions)
  4.   SounderBruce (submissions)
  5.   Cas Liber (submissions)
  6.   Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7.   Iazyges (submissions)
  8.   Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

A kitten for you!Edit

Thanks for your willingness to mentor me to learn more skills. JogiAsad  Talk 12:22 pm, 21 November 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−6)

@JogiAsad: I'm afraid this is exactly what I meant when I said your English was not good enough to participate in most discussions. I explicitly said I was not willing to mentor you; not because I have any hard feelings, but because I'm too busy. And you've misunderstood me completely. Do you see the problem? Vanamonde (talk) 2:09 pm, 21 November 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−6)
Okay, sorry for that I am taking back this kitten..JogiAsad  Talk 4:40 pm, 21 November 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−6)

GA review requestEdit

I have recently nominated Vastupala, a 13th-century minister from Gujarat for GA review. I noticed that you have nominated some GAs related to Indian history. So I thought you would be better at reviewing Indian history related GA. Thus I humbly request you to review Vastupala for GA. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nizil. I'll make an effort to review this, but it may be a few weeks before I get to it. At first glance, the article seems well researched and based on solid sources, which makes it a decent GA candidate. However, there are fairly regular grammatical issues. These could be picked up during a GA review, but since it's likely to be some time before it's reviewed, I wonder if you would consider requesting a GOCE copyedit. There are also some inconsistencies, which I suspect are a result of contradictory material in the sources: for instance, you mention a possible date of birth, but then state that a later date is the "earliest known date about him". The latter refers to an event thirty years after the former, but suggests it occurs during his childhood. This sort of thing may be resolved by using inline attribution more ("this source states that..."). Addressing these points before a review would speed it up considerably. Finally, considering how much the article mentions the brother of the primary subject, I wonder if it would be worth refashioning it into a single article about both siblings (which isn't that unusual a thing to do). Best, Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
........Piggybacking on the title of this section, how good is Rajendralal Mitra for a GA after writing a lead? The one about Narada Sting Operation went pretty smooth:-) WBGconverse 09:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: It's in decent shape. Comments here would mostly be grammar and structure related; it seems well referenced and looks like it covers much of the substance. A copy-edit wouldn't hurt here either, but I'd be willing to pick it up as is in a couple of weeks, if no one else has done so before. There's a few harv errors in the article; just in case you're not already aware of it, this is a very handy script for checking these. Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, I can wait for few weeks. Thank you for pointing out things which need to be fixed (especially birth date issue). I will look into it and will request copyedit at GOCE as well because I am not very good with grammar. I also thought about making the article about both siblings but I afraid that it would make it longer with more information on Tejapala. I will reconsider my decision and most probably make it about both siblings. Great inputs. :) -Nizil (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: No problem. Do keep in mind that according to our guideline about article size, we don't really have to worry about a page needing to be split because of length until we're over 50kb of readable prose size. At the moment this article is at 21kb, so I wouldn't worry. The factor that does affect whether to make a single article about the two people is the degree of overlap in the content about them, which of course you know better than I do. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, thank you for pointing it out. I will check: what I can find about Tejapala and what need to be expanded in the current article to include information on Tejapala. If the expansion is not significant, I will make it about both siblings. Many things are already common for both. e.g. Ancestry and family. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I will look forward to your review:-) And, thanks for pointing me to the script! WBGconverse 06:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit

Holiday wishesEdit

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Hi Vanamonde93, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas,
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year!
May 2019 be prosperous and joyful......
Thanks for all your help and your contributions to the 'pedia  

WBGconverse 16:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, WBG, and the same to you and yours. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetingsEdit

  Austral season's greetings
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, Cas, and the same to you. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with NoticeboardEdit

I have noticed that another person has tried to remove a discussion I started about a sockpuppet [[1]] who is in a targeted way trying to revert what I put and then he will claim that I am "POV editing"or giving "Unconstructive edits". The sockpuppet's name is supposed to be Anonymous17771 and in fact for one article called Frontier Corps, he deleted information that I added with sourcing and did not give a proper reasoning before doing so. Can you please make sure that the Incident that I have recorded on the Noticeboard remains up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mountain157: The account you want investigated is already blocked. No purpose is served by further investigation, and so the removal of the report was absolutely correct. Please don't put your request back on the noticeboard. Vanamonde (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Durham Fire Department Page DeletionEdit

Hi, I created and was working on expanding the Durham Fire Department article. In the proposed deletion vote it seems that the fact I was still fleshing out the content was why it was deleted. Could you copy the article over to my sandbox in its most recent form so I can continue to work on it and get it up to snuff? Thanks. ForDisplayOnly (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@ForDisplayOnly: I've restored it to User:ForDisplayOnly/Durham Fire Department. However, please keep in mind that there was fairly clear consensus that the department was not independently notable. So you need to either develop this towards merging it somewhere, or provide unequivocal evidence of notability (which would necessarily have to be sources over and above those that were produced at the AfD, since those have already been analyzed). Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! In retrospect I should have worked on the page in my sandbox more prior to creating it on the main site. It still needed significantly more material and sources synthesized into it, leaving the article as it stood very much a stub in need of expanding on. I was not aware of the intensity of curation of new articles. I appreciate you salvaging what was done so far so I can get it where it ought to be to meet standards here. ForDisplayOnly (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal GreetingsEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Vanamonde93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!Edit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Vanamonde93!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Vanamonde93!Edit

Happy New Year!
Hello Vanamonde93:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, DBigXray 15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers  --DBigXray 15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!Edit

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Vanamonde93. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

  Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.



  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and a happy new year to you too, Gerda. Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There's some nice quotes there, thanks for sharing, Gerda. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Creat a new articleEdit

Hi, I am trying to creat a new article named "MJ Freeway". I have sources

Will you please help me to create this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur Bhatt Shiv (talkcontribs) 11:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mayur Bhatt Shiv: I see that you have created a draft at Draft:MJ Freeway. Unfortunately, the version you created violated our copyright policy, because it copy-pasted directly from one of your sources, and therefore I have deleted it. Some of your sources look okay. I would therefore recommend trying again, using only those sources that satisfy our guideline about reliable sources, and using your own words to convey the information. I would also recommend using the WP:AFC process to create your article. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Will you please help me to create this article perfectly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur Bhatt Shiv (talkcontribs) 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mayur Bhatt Shiv: I'm sorry, but I do not have the time for that at the moment. You will receive helpful feedback on your work at WP:AFC: if that isn't enough for you, you could try asking for help at the teahouse. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in ReviewEdit

  Military history service award
For you work on Operation PBHistory and Luis Posada Carriles, you are hereby awarded the Military history WikiProject Service 2 stripe. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  The Biography Barnstar
For you work on Luis Posada Carriles you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Whoa, thanks, TomStar81. I was not expecting these. Vanamonde (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019Edit

I am not sure about this but the GA submissions from MaranoFan and Lee Vilenski, who are in the top three currently does not meet the scoring criteria. Both the users worked through the articles during 2018, before the competition even began. Please let me know if I have made a mistake. ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: I am going to check all of the GA submissions at some point, and will get back to you then; it will likely be a few days. Cwmhiraeth or one of the other judges may take a decision about them before that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gadget to measure prose sizeEdit

Could you add a link to the gadget, as you offered here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanitha MathilEdit

Hi, I wonder if you could help. I was reviewing this article for DYK and I'm concerned about a sentence in the first paragraph that I have tagged "clarification needed". I already removed the text once, but it was reverted. Can you check the text and the source, as it doesn't make sense. Also somebody's changing kilometres to metres all the time - why is that? Whispyhistory (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Whispyhistory. I can't speak to why an editor might be changing kilometers, but since they haven't reverted again, I think you don't need to worry about it. I agree that the text you have tagged could use some rewriting; it's written from a perspective that assumes too much knowledge of the situation; but I'm afraid I'm too busy to look into it at the moment, partly because I don't know too much about it. It will have to wait for a couple of days, though maybe Kautilya3 will be able to help. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Whispyhistory, I will open a talk page post so that we don't end up pinging Van.
Has the page been nominated for DYK? I didn't find any notices on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. I'll check later too. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


I made a proposal here, but all the permutations and combinations have been rejected by another editor and so, I thought that someone experienced can only add it. Please add what is proposed there to the article in a way that is acceptable according to the rules. It was copied from the List of fatwas article, from the section titled, "Fatwas against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and ISIS". I also wrote about the Trump administration withdrawing aid citing its dissatisfaction with Pakistan's counter-terrorism, but it has been removed as can be seen here. Please modify and add that back to the article in a way that others will accept it, according to the rules. Thanks!-Karumari (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Karumari: If one of your additions has been reverted in good faith, the proper thing to do is to go to the talk page of the article, explain why you want to add the material, and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS there. If you cannot do so, the material shouldn't be changed. I have no interest in that article at the moment, and I'm not going to do your job for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding remark at WP:ANEdit

Hello Vanamonde93, You mentioned that my account was "a tad suspicious." I'm a total novice here, so I need to know what is it about my account that looks suspicious? I'm not taking issue with what you wrote, I just need to know. As I sit here, I feel human, but I suppose I might be imagining it. Please let me know. Thank you! Yankeepapa13 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yankeepapa13: My apologies if you were offended, but very simply accounts which are registered long before they make an edit cause some raised eyebrows, because they are sometimes sleeper accounts. And that's more or less all I want to say, per WP:BEANS, but rest assured if you're just a low activity editor, it's not a big deal. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the assist. 7&6=thirteen () 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, 7&6=thirteen! Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

T.L. Williams deleted pageEdit

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Truth in advertising, I am both the author and subject of the T.L. Williams page, which was recently deleted. The reason I appealing for its restoration has to do with what I believe are factual errors that contributed to your rationale for deleting the page. First, one reviewer noted that one of the three title list on the author website had only sold 3 volumes on Amazon. This is completely erroneous in that thousand of books have been sold on Amazon, B&N, Baker and Taylor, Kobo, Apple Store etc. In addition one of your reviewers indicated this was probably just a vanity page to sell books. If you had looked at my website you would find dozens of editorial reviews, prin, radio and tv interviews from the likes of NPR, FOX, NBC etc. Finally, the two writers organizations from whom I have received awards were characterized as clubs for authors. This is a mischaracterization. They are serious writers groups that offer international book award competitions. I believe that if you look at this page again in this light you will find that it has merit and should be restore. By the way the fourth book in the Logan Alexander series is due out in March. Thanks for your consideration of this request.--Wmsterry (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wmsterry: Thanks for raising this with me, rather than trying to undo this yourself. There's a few things at play here. First, I did not make a sudden personal decision to delete the article; I deleted it following this discussion. The points made there were fairly substantive. Nobody was saying only three copies had been sold; the argument was that only three different books had been sold, which is somewhat different. Regardless, while high sales may be an indicator of notability, they are not in and of themselves a criterion that may be used to establish notability. Similarly, no matter what the precise characterization of the awards you received, said awards are clearly not prominent enough to meet WP:ANYBIO.
Second, even if I agreed with your argument, I cannot unilaterally overturn the decision made at AfD. I could reopen the deletion discussion, and relist it, allowing you to say at that discussion what you have said here. As the subject of the page, though, you would have to convince others of your argument; your own opinion cannot be given much weight. Finally, there is the possibility of recreating the page. Any user may rewrite that page at any time: you, however, are strongly discouraged from trying to do so, per WP:AUTOBIO. As described there, an option you have is to write a draft and submit it to WP:AFC; however, autobiographies are often subject to harsh review, and so it is possible you will find that process discouraging.
Given all of this, what would you like to do? (Further links you may wish to read: WP:NAUTHOR, WP:COI). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and the clarification of the process. I think for now I'll look into the links you cited above, and see if there is merit in approaching this another way or just accept the findings of AfDWmsterry (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Feel free to post here if you have further questions. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

History of IndiaEdit

Could you please explain what's wrong with this ?Sahil (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sahil D: My apologies, I misread my watchlist; you made that edit during an ongoing conflict at History of India. That said, the wording you added is completely redundant to the rest of the paragraph, and so doesn't add much value in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Mary OliverEdit

 On 17 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mary Oliver, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan FrazierEdit

Hello. Could you restore the article about Frazier to my userspace for a day or so, just so I can copy and paste a source or two to keep Frazier in this list. Without a Wikipedia article and without any sources, there's no indication that he's a real person, let alone an African-American Republican. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: There were only a handful of reliable sources in that article anyways, so I went ahead and checked them myself, and added a couple that mentioned both race and political affiliation to that list. That seemed to be less bother than userfying and letting you do that, but if you still want a copy, let me know and I'd be happy to oblige. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

An acceptable outcomeEdit

Removing the Friedman reference from the lede seems a good way of dealing with that. My MOS:COMMONNAME objection was a technical reading disregarding any of the context around it. But I'd concur with you that, considering the totality of what's being said there, it's undue. Thx. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Thanks. FWIW, I think you were correct in saying that dealing with the "Nobel Prize" vs "Nobel Memorial Prize" issue was quite unnecessary in that context. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ishi in Two WorldsEdit

My suspicion is that the book in and of itself is not really notable in the way that Ishi himself is. Could be you'll prove me wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Orangemike: I haven't done enough research to write an article yet, but there's several indications that it's independently notable: it's been cited 459 times, Salon says its still in print and has sold more than a million copies, there's a scholarly review here, another here, and some decent commentary here (apologies if you can't access any of those). I'll do further digging if necessary, but even these would be enough to satisfy NBOOK, I'd say. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Vanamonde93".