User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 18

< Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19 >

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)

Reg deletion of jaiganesha.jpg

Sharan (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Hi there,

Just received an alert regarding the deletion of the pic attached to the page 'Kuldeep M. Pai. This is a screenshot of one of Kuldeep Pai's videos... attached it as it was relevant to the content. If this is deemed irrelevant, I am happy to replace it with a new picture (which is my own work), in lieu of the existing one. Please advise me if I can go ahead and replace the picture?

Also, if I may ask, the main profile picture of Kuldeep Pai which is my own work, (Kuldeep pai.jpg) is not visible on the page Kuldeep M.Pai. Can you advise me on that as well, please? Should I reload this again? Why am I not able to view his profile picture? Sharan (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sharan Sharan (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@SHARANYABHARATHWAJ: You uploaded the file (File:Jai ganesha.jpg) to Wikimedia Commons. Commons only accepts files that are either in the public domain or those that are freely licensed (see Commons:Commons:Licensing). Screenshot of a movie is not freely licenses, and you are not the author (although you falsely claimed it to be your "own work"). So, it can't be uploaded to Commons. Regarding your other question, you are free to add image to the article. See Help:Pictures for more info. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Mhdsuhail123 has returned with the new a/c Muhammed.suhail. Promoting and advocating Mammootty films' box office as usual and the similar username. --Let There Be Sunshine 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I really like your username! Thegooduser talk 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Guide me

Hello Vanjagenije, I am new growing up wikipedian. Please Guide me How to use, what are restriction, and so on. Hope I will grow up with your support. Please reply back LuckyRacerNP (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@LuckyRacerNP: I left you a welcome message at your user talk page. It contains links to all important pages that are helpful for understanding Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me if you need some clarification. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Numrec

Hi. The main article speaks after this revert that 113 countries recognize the Kosovo, thats incorrect. --Elmedinfeta (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Elmedinfeta: Well, what exactly is wrong? There are 113 UN member states on the list that recognized Kosovo at some point. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There are 112 (58%) of 193 states that recognize Kosovo. One country has the recognition withdrawn and 80 countries don‘t recognize Kosovo. That doesn‘t make sense. For a example: Look at the german vision. --Elmedinfeta (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The logic is that 113 states have recognized Kosovo at some point. Maybe it can be formulated differently, I agree, but it isn't incorrect. I advice you to use the article talk page to gather consensus for new formulation. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI mergers needed

Hello. Can you please help out with this SPI merge request (it's marked under "Clerk Assistance Requested")? The SPI cases in question have been left unmaintained for months, and the CU data in the cases pretty much indicate that all of the accounts belong to the same sockmaster. It's a mess, from what I can see, and no one's taken it up so far. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Orthodoxy RM

You recently participated in an AfD discussion for the Anti-Orthodoxy article here. A request to move (retitle) that article is currently under discussion here if you'd care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  05:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Aleksa

Hi,

I noticed that you blocked Surtsicna recently for edit warring at Aleksa Šantić.

I am afraid this editor continued with their disruptive behavior right after the block expired:

1. The first edit of this editor after the block expired was to continue right where they stopped. To push their POV at the same article (diff)
2. They based their edits on false arguments like (consensus reached here, at Talk:Aleksa Šantić#"Bosnian Serb"(diff)) although it was quite obvious that they misinterpeted direct opposition of another editor as support and consensus.
3. When I pointed to this misinterpretation three times (diff), (diff) and (diff) they presistently pretended that direct opposition to their position was lack of opposition (diff) and (diff).
4. Only when I pointed to this misinterpretation for the fourth time (diff), Surtsicna gave up their misinterpretations refusing to acknowledge the issue with their editing and consensus reached by all other editors.
5. Surtsiscna also refused to acknowledge the issue with their editing when they got themself blocked claiming I did not edit war.... I did not break any rule.... (diff).
6. In the absence of valid arguments they used ridicule fallacy trying to confront valid objections of other editors grounded in wikipedia policies and guidelines, comparing the case of Aleksa Šantić who is dead for almost a century with Barrack Obama and Jenifer Lopez (diff). To illustrate irrationality of Surtsicna's attempt to impose their "Yugoslav" POV on Aleksa Santic article I will point to multiple articles they created themselves (ie Marija Kon, Berta Bergman,...) without respecting the same POV they desperatelly trying to push on Santic article.

I don't know the reason for their behavior. I usually find their edits quite constructive most of the time. From some reason in case of Aleksa Santic I am afraid their edits are not constructive. The worst thing is that they persistently refuse to acknowledge the issue with their edits. Taking in consideration above written I am afraid that somebody who has appropriate tools should prevent them from continuing their disruptive behavior. Can you please advise how to resolve issues with their editing?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: I'm not sure what you want me to do. You say you want me to prevent them from continuing their disruptive behavior, but there have been no edits on the Aleksa Šantić article for 8 days. What disruptive behavior? You obviously have a WP:content dispute and you should resolve it using WP:Dispute resolution methods. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am stunned by your lack of good faith, Antidiskriminator. I did not expect you, of all users, to interpret a simple compliance with a non-controversial guideline as an anti-Serb conspiracy. Neither Marija Kon nor Berta Bergman are defined by their ethnicity, i.e. as Jews, which is what all this is about. Are you so convinced that I am on an anti-Serb or pro-Yugoslav crusade that you did not notice? Better examples of my "Yugoslav POV pushing" would be edits at Stjepan Radić, Džemal Bijedić, Hamdija Pozderac, Josip Vancaš, etc. What exactly is so disruptive about complying with MOS:BIO? Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want you to do anything. I asked you for your opinion. Thank you for presenting your opinion.

Surtsicna I did write word Serb nor anything like anti-Serb conspiracy in my above comment. Your comment is straw man and flag vawing fallacy and another blatant misinterpretation of other editors' comments. I clearly explained what is what I find disruptive: your apparent refusal to accept consensus reached by all othere editors at Aleksa Santic talkpage. This will be my last comment in this discussion with you here. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

help with trolls

Hi The page Simone_Butler has been targeted by trolls most recently by the name of Lyerlyerpantsonfier. this user along with ilbogod have been trying to disrupt the page and write derogatory comments in their edits. Trolling is a criminal offence and if need be the police will be notified of the ip addresses. I do not wish for a page deletion, but to stop these trolls adding information to the page and deleting links for no reason. Deleting the page will only result in the trolls being able to set up a fake page . please help to stop this harassment and vandalism. Template:Lyerlyerpantsonfieruw-hblock

I have tried to keep this page as clean as possible, yet since last July, I have increasing problems with disrupting editing from trolls who delete large sections then write insults in the edit description . the solution is not to delete the page. The solution is to punish the trolls and insulting and disruptive editors adding unwanted information and deleting links. the page is obviously being targeted by intentional trolling and harassment which needs to stop.

Tea Bow K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea Bow K (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy page link Simone Butler --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tea Bow K. I understand your frustration, but this appears to be a content dispute. I took a look and most of the edit summaries are canned (done by editing tools). I also looked over the last year of edits to the article looking for derogatory comments and/or edit summaries, and no edits appear to be derogatory in nature (nor are the summaries). As for her being referred to by her last name (Butler), that is standard practice on Wikipedia. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@TheSandDoctor: I'm slightly troubled by the accounts in the article's history, and indeed I've blocked one of them (tactfully, I did not directly label them a BLP troll). A lot of cruft was removed by these accounts, but it seems also some good content. One to watch definitely... Tea Bow K, if you'll agree to stick to encyclopaedic standards and reliably sourced information, you can drop me a note if you get any further aggro. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tasko Nacic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tasko Nacic.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Dear Vanjagenije, Thanks for your kindness and help! I'm still learning to edit Wikipedia and I really appreciate your support. I hope I won't be too much of a nuissance though :) Best, Diana Diana Balasanyan (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

user Tiimiii

seems to resent your block as that of one who is "involved". I declined their block appeal out of hand due to the continued name calling. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: If you think the block is inappropriate, feel free to unblock. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Just wanted to let you know.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

IP activity at the article "Hungarians"

Dear Vanja,

there is a recurrent IP activity in the article, pursuing an unexplained modification regarding the Denmark/Netherlands statistical data. After the second revert I introduced a section regarding this in the article's talk page, but I've got no response. For a few weeks, the IP activity seemed to sleep and stop regarding this, but recently it started again, with another IP address. Once you told me I should warn/act regarding IP's the same way as registered users, however, since the address is varying, I don't really know how much it would be effective....I don't wish to make more reverts, could you please protect the article for a while? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I only see two IP edits regarding the Denmark/Netherlands statistical data in the time span of 6 days. That's not even near the level of disruption needed for page protection. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

IP 141.215.17.44

Hi Vanjagenije. I think BulgariaSources might be back again as an IP, only this time at Category:Wars involving Bulgaria, etc. That category page has had issues editors with a 141 IP address adding article content (tables, etc.) to it for some time now, and the 141 IP was one often used by BulgariaSources per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive. Do you think there's anything to this or is it just another random IP? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the range for three days. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator Bishonen

The administrator Bishonen has referred on their talk page to an editor as a "Little Troll". This is a personal attack and thus unacceptable under the terms of Wikipedia. I am sure you will want to investigate and immediately implement the required warning and subsequent block regarding personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7A8:1:121:D6AE:52FF:FEB9:5C62 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you should provide a diff for the personal attack. Here. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

I've personally taken upon myself to investigate this terrible, terrible situation. Bad, bad bad! Even if Rivertorch posted that they had been called a "dangerously unstable troll" argh blargh gnupp. There, all done! Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk

That information is not valid as to how many troops it has now that is a plan not a number get your facts straight and read it. ALBA LUSHNJE (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Likely more work related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GRUPO CALIMA DIESEL

While reviewing new pages I came across Israel Gois, a bio created by new editor Analdo bucunhol (talk). I have a feeling that this new account is related to the editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GRUPO CALIMA DIESEL given that Israel Gois is the CEO of the Brazilian Equities exchange (BEX), which the sockfarm attempted to create under various different names. I also recognize the name, and I may have seen it on some of the now-deleted articles created by the sockfarm. What action can be taken to add User:Analdo bucunhol to the now-closed SPI?--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Please, go to WP:SPI and follow the steps explained under the "How to open an investigation" headline. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

Let me know if my assistance here is unwanted. This strikes me as weird what happened to put it mildly. FYI all socks have been locked now. This is not the attitude I expected from a fellow admin. Regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@MoiraMoira: Archives should not be edited for obvious reasons. I don't see anything weird in that. If you have some new information regarding sockpuppetry, you should open new case (see WP:SPI). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This very clear to me. when exchanging data is not appreciated be assured I won't bother to contact you again. Regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

New data on naming of 1948 war

Please take a look at the data I provide here.

Best, Shaferjo (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tamara787 SPI mergers needed

Hi there. Can you please merge the Angela Criss SPI and it's archive into the Tamara787 SPI? According to the Global Account logs of Angela Criss and its sockpuppets, as seen here [1] [2] [3], all of those accounts are actually sockpuppets of Tamara787. Can you please merge the SPI pages so that everything will be kept in one location? Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• @LightandDark2000: But, the Angela Criss account is older then the Tamara787 account. If they are all the same, then they are all socks of Angela Criss, and the other case should be merged into that one. Have you discuss this with anyone else? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not yet, but there was some sort of agreement in the Tamara787 SPI archive to merge all of the cases into that one. Actually, the YAGN LONG and User:GoKuchisakeonnago! accounts were much older than Tamara787 as well (GoKuchisakeonnago! was the oldest account), but last year, they still decided to keep everything under the name of Tamara787. You can ask them, though. The involved users are pretty much those who were involved in the discussion here. Actually, now that I've taken another look, the end of the linked discussion explains why the CUs and Clerks decided to list everything under Tamara787's name. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: By the way, the Miss Paris Slue SPI needs to be merged into the Tamara787 SPI (though in this case, the Miss Paris Slue account is 2 years younger than Tamara787). Both SPIs should be merged into the Tamara787 case, given the recentl Global Account Log labels by the Stewards, and the CU agreement on the case naming at the discussion I linked above. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: What do you think? Should we merge them? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you should merge Tamara into Angela. The two cases are  Confirmed. Leave Miss Paris Slue alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Belgrade Design Week

Hi, Belgrade Design Week seems notable enough to be added to the Belgrade entry as an external link. The festival renovates old or abandoned buildings in the city, promoted Belgrade for European City of Culture, and has welcomed international speakers who ended up working on architectural projects in Belgrade. However, I understand if it doesn't fit some criteria I'm unaware of. Thanks for your time, hvala Abonzz (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge request for Iniced sock

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.186.60.215

This is clearly Iniced. IPs geo-locate to Chorley and the "style" fits. Favonian (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

if you have a moment

as the deleting admin, could you email me a copy of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/December 2015 before it was deleted? I think it'd be helpful for me to refresh how the group training was conducted. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@L235: I sent you, but I'm not sure if the formatting is OK. I have never sent a wiki page to someone. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 12:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Dalida bronze 1977.jpg

Hello, you put this file for deletion because it hasn't got any proper source. I've found only one Pinterest source on web for this image. What should I do? I know that this photo was made and published In Napoli before 1976, but the photographer is unknown, it was someone from family. Does it really need web source tomkeep it on wiki? It has everything. Cordially, DalidaFan

But, where did you get the image from? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Family inheritance, i had it in yellow paper Kodak bag. On it there are written informations. I've scanned it in 2009 and posted last year on Pinterest. DalidaFan 20:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, then the source is unknown. It should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the web source of photo is unknown, to be correct... So the politics of Wikipedia is that only photos with web source can be posted? DalidaFan 19:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaFan: No, we need the source. If the source is a magazine, you should provide the name and the issue of the magazine in which the photo was published. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: But what if the photo is not taken from internet... what if the photo was scan of photograph that has free licence? It is not possible that all photos on wikipedia are only taken from online magazine pages....DalidaFan 16:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaFan: I am not talking about "online magazines". I am talking about paper magazines, newspapers, books etc. If you scan the photo from a newspaper or a book, you have to provide the full name of the source. If the photo was scan of photograph that has free licence, as you say, then you have to prove that the original was released under a free license. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Hello V. I don't know if there is any reason to be concerned about this but I wanted to make you aware of it in case. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Ukrainian woman in Ukrainian clothes. Please return images on the topic. DENAMAX (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Two cases

This is partly my fault, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACMEDeputy‎, which you just archived, needs to be merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gsnguy. If you want to wait until the reports in the Gsnguy case are disposed of, that's okay, but I just don't want this to slip between the cracks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I just closed the latest report at Gnsguy. The second one is also closed, and the first is in clerk status.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, Vanjagenije (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Vanjagenije. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Sciences 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Vanjagenije,

I am postdoctoral researcher and adjunct lecturer - and new to world of contributing to Wikipedia. I opened an account for the first time last month and was entirely unaware that I should only have one account. I thought I could have two accounts, and decided to open one for contributions to entries about my academic field of economics and another account for other kinds of entries beyond economics. Now that you have disabled my user account "Thesciences" I have learned about the wikipedia guidelines that users should use one single account. I apologise for not having known that beforehand. Would you please be able to help me erase my account "Economicsciences" so that I only have and use one single account "Thesciences"? or could you possibly unblock my "Thesciences" account and I would then go ahead and only ever use "Thesciences" account from now on and will erase the "Economicsciences" account right away myself? This is all new to me and it seems my IP address has been blocked.

I very much look forward to your reply, and apologise again for not having known that two separate accounts is not allowed. Now I do know.

I would be very grateful. Thanks Alexander

@Economicsciences: Having two or more accounts is allowed, as long as those accounts are not used abusively (see WP:ILLEGIT). You were using two accounts to edit the same article (Replication crisis), which is not allowed. Thus, your claim that you were using one account to edit about "economics" and another one for other kinds of entries beyond economics is not true. You were using both accounts several times to edit the same article, and that is why you were blocked. Unfortunately, it is technically impossible to delete user accounts, per our terms of use that you have accepted (twice). It is possible to unblock your Thesciences account, so that you can use only that account (thought, this account still can't be deleted). Do you want me to do that? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Vanjagenije,

Thank you for clarifying. I am, as mentioned, new to editing in Wikipedia. Once I realised that my revisions in 'Replication crisis' appeared publicly as user "Economicsciences" I decided to revert and make changes using the "Thesciences" account - and should not have gone back and forth between the two account, and realise that I should have informed myself better about the guidelines; I now see that the problem is that it is not allowed to use two accounts for editing the same article - I can assure you that now that I know this I will not do that again. If you could please unblock my "Thesciences" account, I would very much appreciate that. I understand - based on your comments - that I cannot however erase my "Economicsciences" account.

I look forward to your reply. Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economicsciences (talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Economicsciences:  Done. Please, sign your posts at talk pages (see WP:SIGN). Vanjagenije (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Vanjagenije, Thank you for unblocking "Thesciences". In case it may still be possible to use both accounts - the "Economicsciences" account only for economic entries and the "Thesciences" account for other scientific entries - while from now on not ever using both for the same article, I would very much appreciate that if you may be able to unblock the "Economicsciences" account as well. If that may not be possible, then I would understand. Thanks again! Thesciences (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not willing to unblock your other account because you were using two accounts in inappropriate way. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije, no problem at all. All the best Thesciences (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

IP socks

Hello Vanjagenije, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please, open new investigation at WP:SPI and provide evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have called on the admins who already knew something about this problem because I thought you could do something just on the bases of the evidences I brought. 198.46.84.16 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Legobot (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Accused Sockpuppetry

Hi, my name is Partyfan1, I have been accused by User:Melencron of being a sockpuppet of Branflakes452701. We both like politics, but that does not mean we are the same person. I would like it if, you would please reject the SPI case. Thank you Partyfan1 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Pitanje

Zdravo, Kakav je status imena I. Janev. (I.- I G O R ) Da li za taj naziv postoji filter?77.46.231.199 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would you like to know that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Мислим да су увели филтер за име Игор Јанев (на латиници), што је по мом схватању неоправдано и претставља вид самовоље, имајући у виду да је Игор Јанев Научни саветник (ранг редовног професора универзитета) у Београду. Потпуно је нејасна хајка која је у вези са њим направљена на енглеској Википедији.

Ради се о релевантној личности, а не измишлљеној, са 20 научних монографија и преко 100 научних радова, личности који има највише научно звање у Србији. (Обраћам Вам се на Српском, јер овај језик боље разумемо, а Ви сте из Србије и ту радите и предајете).77.46.231.199 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - It's probably because of this. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Питање није упућено трећим лицима као што је Ebyabe, него Вањи на страни за разговор. А освета ради више налога није прави одговор на постављено питање.

Ко Вама даје право да овде јавно блатите једног професора Београдског универзитета?77.46.231.199 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Questioning this editor repeatedly here about filters and what-not and why you can't create an article about a particular person, as well as telling other editors to stay out of your "internal affairs" is not going to accomplish anything at all. Your questions show me that your intent here is not to contribute to the project but to chase a personal agenda of your own - especially when you respond here and state that you're "not interested in your policy" (as in Wikipedia's policies). The article cannot be created due to past events and disruption, and these restrictions are not going to be lifted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Vanja has a Serbian citizenship.77.46.231.199 (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Питање није упућено трећим лицима.77.46.231.199 (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC

Вања, сматрајте да сте овим дописом упозорени, и убудуће пазите на своје понашање.77.46.231.199 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for two weeks and anon-blocked the range for a month. Compare to:

• Special:Contributions/77.46.242.6
• Special:Contributions/77.46.229.95
• Special:Contributions/77.46.230.17
• Special:Contributions/77.46.207.159
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Позз, шта се дешава са енглеском страном Требиње на Википедији? Константно неко скида податке за климу? The markos95 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Tool for renaming SPIs?

Hi. Can you remind me about where to find the tool for the easy renaming of SPI cases (such as what you did with DamonMass4 / GrandTheft2)? Or did you just do this by hand? Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Richwales: I don't know about any tool. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I filed an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Littlemixfan!. Can you check this? 183.171.122.247 (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'll check it as soon as I check the 90 reports the were filed before yours. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Help please (?)

Hello, your wikipedia page is amazing. I just did my thousandth edit here and id love to be a wikipedia. Id love to help and create articles about greek athletes , sports ets ofc with sources. Id like to ask you how could I create my page here like yours, with the propriate archive and the list of the pages I created (and I will create in the future). I jave create only 1 page yet (Romy Papadea) and I am still lost in here lol. Thanks a lot for your time :) Im glad to here some new from you at my talk page. Regards, Kostas Halkman8 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Halkman8

@Halkman8: Are you talking about my WP:User pages? You can try the WP:User page design center to get some ideas. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your edits! I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Surge elec: Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Vanja, can you please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ann HHero to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. You can then add a note that I requested and confirmed the merge. Finally, please retag the Ann HHero socks. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:David-Dragicevic-1.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cheerleaders Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cheerleaders Cover.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Pumpie SPI

Hello Vanjagenije, you seem to be quite familiar with this sockmaster, so I was wondering if you had any thoughts to share regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pumpie. In my view the evidence is compelling. Sro23 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have any objections, I intend to indef the user myself. Sro23 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:MamasAndPapas260.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MamasAndPapas260.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Block User:Rohil 7 Train

I think you need to block User:Rohil 7 Train. He might be a sock puppet of User:Koov, who also owned the now-bllocked User:R188 7 Train. Davidng913 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	The thoughts of merging SPI pages gives me nothing but headache, but you do it with such speed and precision! Alex Shih (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Vanjagenije (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Krajoyn, the SPI that keeps on giving

Hi. You just closed the most recent SPI. I probably neglected to explain why I deemed a CU necessary: there are always colocation web hosts and very likely sleepers lurking in the grass. Done it so many times that I forget to dot all the i's. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll probably get laicized for this, but I undid your closure and provided a CU rationale. Favonian (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user

Sir, the user Muhammed.suhail has created a new account Mollywood.lover editing the same article advocating same changes. Along with Sagar.kottappuram777, who has been there from the beginning and edited together with all former accounts of Suhail's and continues with this one too. Edits the same article on same day. This user could also be the same person.112.133.248.9 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to open an WP:SPI investigation and to present some evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank You. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Muhammed.suhail. Please check.116.68.108.25 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Hannity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet return

Hello,

On 29 May 2016, you protected the [[4]] because of ongoing vandalism from a suspected [[5]].

This individual has appears to have returned using new means as the same edits are being done. I have returned the vandalized section to its former state for now.

The page may require further and/or indefinite protection.

Thanks

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BE1F:FF56:803B:5559:1046:FC17 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Band Azra.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Band Azra.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please restore semi-protection

Since you did a histmerge on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson, the semi-protection seems to be removed, so please restore it Hhkohh (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Bencemagyar

Any further thoughts on your unblock-on-hold review at User talk:Bencemagyar, which has been open for some time now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egypt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egypt. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi Vanja, can you please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LovelyGirl7 into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffman12345 and retag as needed? I'll probably make a post-merge comment that the accounts are confirmed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Vanja, should I ask another clerk to do this?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I was a bit busy. I'll do it. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Need unmerging

Hi Vanja, In this report, my comment "This is Jhonh3360 and this report needs to be moved" would have perhaps been clearer if I had also stated that it isn't Nickag. The report was filed under the wrong master so it was needing to be moved to the Jhonh3360 case but not the Nickag case. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I wasn't looking for the two masters' cases to be merged, just the most recent filing moved to the correct master. They are distinctly different.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I think I restored everything to the original state. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Keyboard Sonata No. 59 (Haydn） listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keyboard Sonata No. 59 (Haydn）. Since you had some involvement with the Keyboard Sonata No. 59 (Haydn） redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Jelena Karleuša

The content in the introduction already exists in the Career paragraph, then some of the text was obviously written with bad intentions. That's why I edited it, and please live it like that. MNO BG (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Notable residents

Pozdrav. Dodao sam juce imena Nenada Vasilica dzez muzicara i Dejana Stojiljkovica, pisca na listu poznatih Nislija sto ste naknadno obrisali. Uradio sam to u najboljoj nameri bez zelje da promovisem bilo kog. Prethodno sam takodje dobro pogledao listu i imena na njoj koja su, logicno, manje ili vise poznata. Poznavalac sam muzike i knjizevnosti i siguran sam da je Nenad Vasilic uz cuvenog Batu Anastasijevica https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bratislav_Anastasijević (za kog takodje verujem da treba da bude na listi) najveci niski dzez muzicar ikada. U pitanju je umetnik koji ima iza sebe karijeru dugu 20-ak godina i desetak albuma a saradjuje sa najpoznatijim evropskim dzez imenima. Dejan Stojiljkovic je najpoznatiji i najcitaniji niski pisac mladje generacije. Prevodilac je, pisac je poznatih scenarija i dobitnik velikog broja nagrada. Vrlo dobrnoamerno vas molim da jos jednom razmotrite vase brisanje i nadam se vratite ova dva lica na listu. Otvoren sam za diskusiju. Srdacan pozdrav!--Montoie (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Montoie: Please see Wikipedia:Famous Residents. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hvala. Pogledao sam, ali ne razumem koji of kriterijuma je problematican. Ljudi su znacajni u svojoj oblasti, imaju wiki stranice, rodjeni su u Nisu, borave u Nisu... --Montoie (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Montoie: When I reverted your edits ([6]) I left an edit summary saying "see WP:WTAF". Did you bother to read WP:WTAF? Regarding WP:Famous Residents, the problem is with criteria No 1: Notability. The person must be notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.. Those persons do not have articles in English Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I did not realize that the pages need to be in English. I'll put them back on the list once the wiki articles in English Wikipedia are available.--Montoie (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Tree-category predlog/pomoć

Zdravo,

Ne znam da li si kao i ja primetio da za brojne srpske teme nemamo propratni tree-category. Primera radi: Serbian literature (dok većina evropskih ima), Presidents of Serbian Academy of sciences and arts, Presidents of Matica Srpska, Rectors of University of Belgrade itd.

Lično ne znam da pravim ovakve kategorije a želeo bih. Ako znaš, molim te da me uputiš (ukoliko nije kompleksan kod).

Verujem da bi bilo dobro da se nekoliko nas organizuje i da svako pokriju po jednu od kategorija, a ima ih još praznih, naveo sam tek nekolicinu, i da posle proširujemo. Deluje mi kao šteta i minus što manjkamo sa ovakvim kategorijama.

Ovu poruku sam poslao nekolicini naših Wikipedijaša.

Veliki pozdrav,

Mm.srb (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mm.srb: I'm not sure what "tree-category" is? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Možda nije ispravan termin, izvinjavam se u tom slučaju. Evo na stranici German Literature na dnu postoji German-language literature, na takvo što sam mislio. Mm.srb (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is Category:Serbian literature. Other categories you mention do not exist, but you can create them. There is a page (Help:Category) that explains in detail how to create categories and how to ad pages to categories. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I used the wrong term. This is what I was talking about - https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Serbian_literature Please do give feedback and help me make it official, if possible. Mm.srb (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you are talking about WP:Navigation templates. The draft template that you created (Draft:Serbian literature) is useless. It is obsolete to the category Category:Serbian writers. Also, you said earlier (above) dok većina evropskih ima. I don't see any other similar navigation templates that contain links to all the writers of a certain language. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is it useless? It's not realy all of the writers, just those who are notable. This is the first draft anyway. German literature has it, some other nations had it, but it was removed. I thought that it would be a good thing to have something like this, because it is a solid summary and nothing negative. Mm.srb (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Podujevo

Why you edited Podujevo urban inhabitants ? According to the 2011 census, the urban area has about 23,453 while the municipality has a 88,499 inhabitants.I dont know where you got that number of 43k inhabitant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeutrimGashi1 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moscow School of the Order of St Catherine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Raghunath Nambiar

Hello there, please check whether this article qualifies for G4. It was nominated by yourself last time. Deleting admin does not seem to be active these days. Thanks. Hitro talk 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@HitroMilanese: No, because it is about a different person with the same name. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Milan Kašanin

Hi Vanja, could you please give me feedback and help on the article about our notable art historian Milan Kašanin?

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Milan_Kašanin

Best regards Mm.srb (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You should submit it for review. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Help - Austrian Empire

Hi Vanja,

please help me and rollback the recent IP edit (I already did it manually before, but it is very tiring due they cannot be undone because they are intermediary). I already asked for rollback possibility to myself, but did not have an answer yet. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism and similar (see wp:rollback). I see no vandalism in the Austrian Empire article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the IP the third time is pushing improper modifications as the Austrian Empire would be ceased in 1867, but it is not the case...then I have to bring it to the talk if noone makes it undone...(I checked again the definion, it writes that also for problematic edits, and I consider this problematic...)(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

I am not sure about that. The hat note at the top of the article says "This article is about the Habsburg realm between 1804 and 1867." Also, it seams that a long standing consensus is to limit the scope to the 1804-1867 period. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes the top of the article says that, but in the core what the IP is changing is not very recent. Maybe these differences are because the top was not updated then according to this, as well many people are not totally aware of the details and affairs of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary. Then I leave the IP edit untouched, but somehow it has to be indicated that the Austrian Empire nominally also after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise continued to exist forming the Austrian part of the joint monarchy of two separate states. P.S. (also in the infobox there were data well after 1867 and they had a really long-standing consensus (territory and population data that the IP also removed)- since more years they are present..so something has to be done to put this in order, please tell me your recommendations).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

Picture of Gwendoline Ruais

Hello Vanjagenije, this is Gwendoline Ruais. I've had a Wikipedia page for a long time with a real picture of me which was taken during a live performance. Nobody ever complained about that picture. In an attempt to bully me, someone recently replaced that picture with a horrible photo of someone who isn't me. I tried reverting the page back to my real photo but you are constantly undoing my edits. I understand image licensing is a very important issue and I thank you for being such a valuable part of the Wikipedia community, but in this case I am simply trying to put a real picture of me on the Wikipedia page about myself. Would you please be so kind as to let me do that? Thanks in advance. CaptainFrito (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@CaptainFrito: You can't use a photograph if you don't own copyrights to that photograph without obtaining permission from the copyrights holder. Wikipedia only accepts freely licensed photographs. If you are really Gwendoline Ruais, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to make a selfie and upload it. That way, you are the author and copyrights holder, and you don't need anybody's permission. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All right I have changed the picture to a selfie. I would love to prove to you that I do own the rights to this picture and that I took it myself, please let me know if that will be needed. Thanks. CaptainFrito (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Help changing my username

/* November 2018 */ Thank you Vanjagenije for approving my name change. On the page Wikipedia:Changing username, I only see an option to *request* a change. Please tell me how to actually change my username. Besides this, I do not seem to be able to edit my own talk page(!) When I go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AutoblockList, I see many autoblockings because of my ip address. How can I disassociate from these people and / or change my ip address? 77.127.63.156 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)ShemeshPhone /* November 2018 */ I figured out what happened: I got logged out, and how to re-login with my new username User-Shemesh (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)User-Shemesh

Happy Adminship

Wishing Vanjagenije a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU<sup>(T)</sup> 20:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks a lot! Vanjagenije (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Vanjagenije. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians article

Hi Vanja,

please check the recent edits. I notify you in time, page protection would be recommended if I would be reverted, as well it would be a clear edit war from the other side. In the talk, restructuring written section, but [7] the case is clear, especially you may check it as one who interested in history. The page was protected already for one week recently when I had to make earlier a report because of edit warring, but I am afraid soon things may become disruptive on other's behalf (as such concerns you may read other sections in the talk page). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

Thank You for attention to the article, what recently concerns me as I referred other issues, what's going on recently:

Here one editor [8] with a highly questionable argumentation in advance prolongs what he will purge/delete in one way content, immediately another editor told his diasgreement and objection [9], as well concerning that the way editing process does not work like so in Wikipedia. Other also expressed a concern [10]. Despite the user after the protection expired deleted it [11], that was reverted by another user accordingly [12], after I also expressed my disagreement about the removal in the talk page and reinforced that there was no consensus for it [13].

Despite, the same user made another revert [14] by accusing the other user of "provoking edit war" and referred to third opinons expressed in the NPOV noticeboard (a 60 km long discussion that did not lead to any unform consensus, though some suggestions were considered), but the same time forgetting that without community consensus such deleteions and unlateral changes can't be done in a one way, considering the user soemtimes misuse or don not understand properly wiki guidlelines...

Then again revert [15], again [16] (here the argumentation is again misleading and dubious, - why not to expand it's relevance to a theory, why even ignore?; my addition - and ask the user to "open" a discussion the talk, although it was already discussed - as I refererred above - that there is no consensus for removal...after another editor again made a revert [17], his argumentation is dubious in the edit log since the accusation of "he removal of RS content" how would stand if it includes the whole linguistic section? (despite the user may have referred to other contents, that was no really a consensus for other changes on those sections that are still under discussion the talk pages).

After the section was again restored a bit later [18] pointing out fairly "that (important section was removed without any proper discussion", again the same revert came from the tendentious user [19], with an amazing threat "of the user being reported for disruption???", after Fakirbakir fairly expressed that "No one agreed on these changes. No consensus, article is getting ruined" [20] but again the same user reverted it [21] with again a dubious argumentation.

Seeing this, I again reinforced that there was no consensus [22] and Fakirbakir did not do anything wrong, the answer [23] - the second part in both reflects this - I even do not worth to answer, since the same nonsense argumentation I've met....this seems a disruption, not understanding or misusing WP guidelines...If I count well, already the sixth time reverting and removing something without consensus or proper discussion, an entire section...it heavily concerns me, at this point I am afraid what will come next if such can just go freely...(KIENGIR (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC))

Again...[24], but as well other issues, recent edits in the page/talk you may see user deliberately do not want to understand a follow wiki rules, more editors are already concerned, please impose discretionary sanctions on the user, nothing helped so far, it's really unbearable...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

And again [[25]]...the 8th time...please tell me, how long and how far this can go? Why there is no intervention? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vanja, just for sure I indicate that I reset the map voted by the RFC, that Iovaniorgovan abused through one month recurrently and continued as well just before the admin intervention. Since it is again a complicated case with a long history, just for sure I indicate that here is the background [26] (former WP:AN3 complaint, I could gather a permament link when it became archieved), the rest of the discussion on the talk pages and the just archieved RFC discussion. His really foxy and disruptive attempts were awesome, hopefully it won't happen again, and because of the current situation in the page, I better link the evidence in advance. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

SPI question

Hi, just a question about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood. The case was closed because the IP got blocked in the meantime, but I'm not sure I see whether the case can be taken to be confirmed. Can the IP's numerous creations be speedied per G5? – Uanfala (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts at all? Do I need to ask the admin who closed the case instead? The IP has created a large number of draft articles and given that many appear nominally sourced, it's not unlikely that in six month's time they might get promoted to mainspace. If they can't be G5-ed, then I'll have to leave comments on all of them indicating they're likely to be hoaxes. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Archival of discussion linked to noticeboards

Hello,

You recently reverted an archival done by an editor, on the grounds that the discussion archived was not inactive since it was linked to a noticeboard issue that is not yet closed. May I ask that you do it again?

It involves the same editor. He archived this discussion and this notice of a NPOV issue that are linked to this NPOV noticeboard issue. I did ask him to not archive the discussion.

In reply, he said I was vandalizing the page (for reverting his archival based on the argumentation above).

On another note, this user's Talk page is weird. Seems like his previous sections have gone missing, as it only shows one archive (2018/November) that doesn't contain some of the earlier sections - for example this (which can now be found only in his talk page's history). Is this normal? (to delete sections from the talk page?)Cealicuca (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca: Yes, it is "normal" to remove comments from your own talk page (see WP:BLANKING). I de-archived the discussion because it was still active. On the other hand, the discussion you mention ( (Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians/Archive_19#Restructuring_of_the_Written_sources_section) is not active, there have been no comments for more than 3 months (90 days is a standard period after which discussions are archived). So, I don't see any reason to de-archive. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Abdullah.Mhairat

As part of my tidy up following the conclusion of the SPI and the deletion of his article... well, can I just point you at a bunch of stale ducky sockyness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Advisors Group. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

... and Special:Contributions/Bjaghbeer, User talk:Bjaghbeer. Looks like they've been plugging away at this topic for 5 years and more. Cabayi (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians article

Hi, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at the latest edits made unilaterally by an editor without having reached consensus on the Talk pages. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

One question

Zdravo Vanja,

How can we edit the content behind A bullet on Kosovo related articles? For example, when a user clicks on a bullet behind Kosovo (Kosovo Judicial Council) there is a text stating that 113 countries recognize Kosovo, which is incorrect. Is there a way to edit the text with the current number stated? Mm.srb (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The text is contained in Template:Kosovo-note. The note doesn't say, thought, that 113 countries recognize Kosovo, it says that Kosovo has received formal recognition as an independent state from 113..., which is correct. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Harold and Maude Soundtrack.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Harold and Maude Soundtrack.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Tesla and Serbian Orthodox Church

Hi. I noticed that you did one revert, but there are other edits done prior to this one which were against the same consensus. Here is the consensus [27]. You will see it say: "The consensus is to keep the present text, which reads "Nikola Tesla was born ... to Serbian parents... His father, ... was an Orthodox priest.Tesla's mother['s] ... father was also an Orthodox priest,..." The other suggested version, saying the father and grandfather were Serbian Orthodox priests, would introduce ambiguity. (E.g., 1. Orthodox priests from Serbia, or 2. Serbian Orthodox priests.)...". You can see which references S. Rich put after establishing a consensus. Someone has since put the following references that are against that consensus: 15,16,17,18. All those references are cherry picked and are mentioning Serbian Orthodox Church, thus by consensus introducing ambiguity. Can you please revert to the version that was done by S. Rich? I tried to notify 2 other editors but they do not care about this consensus, and I can't do it as an IP. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Particular articles should be discussed at their talk pages. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I see the protection for IPs editing talk page has expired. I will open a change request. Thank you. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this normal to you [28] ? 89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks
	Thanks for knowing that there was no sockpuppetry and unblocking me! You have recived a trophy! R32 nissan skyline (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Help me

I wasn’t block evasion but I was asking to unlock my account because therenotime didn’t unlock me since the retirement. I wish you can help me with this. Regard Benjaminzyg --2001:8003:DC1C:9E00:7508:FA3D:60D7:15AC (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this socking IP. Unfortunately they were advised, in good faith, to create a new account - could you also block Benjaminzyg101? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Vanjagenije, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Clear socking

Here is important evidence that User:Bilseric and the IP accounts pretending to be someone else supporting him, are the same person: diff.

I will explain it. At that discussion yesterday evening, I discussed only with the IP account. I was asking him for sources, and at middle of the discussion, under pression from me accusing him of not having any further source that that one, he said: It's not irrelevant, and I have provided a secondary source from a contemporary historian saying that happened.

I immediatelly remembered that the only other source presented either by him or "the other one" was this one presented by Bilseric.

I immediatelly started asking him when did he presented that other source, and he got it that he slipped, and avoided presenting it as seen in his answers. But today he couldn´t resist, and he confirmed, as seen at bottom at Talk:Austria-Hungary, that he was refering to that source he presented at the other discussion as Bilseric.

Clear case of socking. He already did that when he was Asdisis and IP´s used to appear backing him, remember. He is so lunatic that he makes this entire theater where he even responds to himself. FkpCascais (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• We have a procedure for conducting sockpuppet investigations. It is explained at WP:SPI. Thanks! Vanjagenije (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You will probably find it hard to believe, but in over more than a decade, and being involved in so many problematic areas, I actually always got to eliminate vandals by other means than not by reporting them for sockpuppeting. I always found the repoting process for socks extremelly hard and time taking. I guess I am probably making an elefant out of a mouse, but that is what always happened with me. Anyway, MrX already started a spy report, I´ll do my best to help.

• • What is most impressive in this case is that the vandal is already indef-banned. His initial account was User:Asdisis and Tesla was his first major involvement. He behaved so annoyingly and was so clearly a POV-pusher that he got himself banned. However, he already made socking before being banned, and afterwords he just continued editing as IP often even openly admiting it was him. He even got to say that no one was going to stop him. So, even if this accounts of his get blocked, he will appear again. I was really thinking of exposing this case to widder community and expose this problem. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Tell me please if the evidence I added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis is going to be taken into account, or what? FkpCascais (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Both IPs are already blocked. What more do you expect to be done? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The account Bilseric is the same as one of the blocked IPs which was blocked as sock of Asdisis, meaning, Bilseric is also Asdisis. FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Vanja, the editor Bilseric is continuing to make the entire mess and refusing to recognise consensus (look at Teslas talk-pages last events. Exactly same behaviour as old Asdisis always did and got him indef-blocked), and since he messed up and admited, while editing as IP (one of this banned here) at Talk:Austria-Hungary, that he preseneted a second source which was actually Bilseric who presenting it Is clear indication he was not carefull enough and he mesed up for a bit which acount he ws using, so, claime as his one, an edit Bilseric did.

More evidece is that they defend exacxt same POV, they use a tone and grammar just same, they know past events from discusions of Asdisis from many years before, and he slipped and made a mistake here clearly indicating IP´s were Bilseic, and all are Asdisis. FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

He (Bilseric) admited that he was one of the IP accounts. And now he is following me around happy for being spared with his Bilseric account. I wouldn´t be bringing this to you if I was not 100% sure. He really slipped there and admited that an edit of his own (while ediitgn as IP) was an edit of Bilseric. Its really staigh-foward case. I provided the diffs. FkpCascais (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, he has followed me to a couple of articles too [29][30]. It's rather comical to see him try to participate in discussions outside of his narrow interests.- MrX 🖋 12:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not a sock of anyones, but it's easy to ban a IP who is involved in personal talks like this. I'm more of people person, and I get involved like this, but that makes me not sock. You can block Bilserik i donnt care, but stop blocking me. For years I have problem with Fkp and his POV pushing. I can link several RfCs I have opened against him and won all. I just care that Fkp is finally blocked as I spent numerous time dealing with his POV pushing agenda. Fkp you are lying as always, I was talking of that source I posted at the top of discussion. I was the one who found the source a long time ago, it is mine. I know you donnt want to see this source as it goes against your POV pushing agenda, but the source says what says. You and others on Tesla page are POV pushing for years, but it's always 4 of you against one so you always win. One by one editor comes and you all POV push opinon and remve one by one. If someone does not wanna go so easiliy you start with accusations. Vanja, read discussion and you will see. You are also laying about my source. Vanja you can read the native langauge of my source, you can see that Fkp is layng. He was POV pushing for years like this. 89.164.199.211 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Where I can apply so you stop blocking me? I deserve after Fkp was now blocked for POV pushing. My ips are 141 and 89 and they frequently change by my internet provider. 89.164.199.211 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not going to get an answer?89.164.199.211 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

He is back

...I mean, he never left, just changed IP. This is one of him: diff, as you can see that is exactly the edit that he fights for years here and got him banned first place at Tesla article (insistance Military Frontier is Croatia, and using that only source) and you can see he deleted sourced content and a source. And the other IPs are also starting with 89 and are at my appeal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Statement_by_uninvolved_editor_89.164.... He just doesnt give up and he admits stalking me for 2 years. What can I do? Besides the obvious which is to point his socking, seems he just changes IP and keeps on. FkpCascais (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

89.164.154.220 FkpCascais (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Wyatt storey sockpuppet investigation

Hi. I see you responded to the sockpuppet investigation I filed. You asked for "At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster." but I don't know you what to do with your reply, it seems like a generic template response which doesn't really address what I submitted. I wrote that "From the behavioural evidence I can't tell why Wstorey2 was blocked as a sock of Wyatt storey". Robby.is.on (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You are supposed to reply on that page, not on my talk page. You wrote that Wstorey2 and Tom johnson jr clearly seem to be the same user. You need to provide some evidence supporting that claim. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know where to reply there. The section where you responded seems to be reserved for "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin". I did include four diffs in total for those two users. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steward_requests/Global#Global_unlock_or_detete_my_only_account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.209.149.59 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Justification for ignoring the UN?!

I want to know how do you justifie your ignorance of UN Security Council and UN Security Council Resolution 1244? Violating the 1244 resolution by aiding, adding and protecting false information on the page Kosovska Mitrovica and blocking people from editing the page because of so called vandalism when their information is recognized by the UN. Nik.kravchenkov (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nik.kravchenkov: Wikipedia is run by a private Wikimedia Foundation, so the United Nations have no authority over Wikipedia. Wikipedia is governed by its WP:policies and guidelines. Feel free to read and understand them, and to ask me if you have any troubles in understanding. The policy of WP:consensus is especially important in this case. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

Obracam ti se na srpskom jeziku, ako nisi zaboravio da pricas. Nema potrebe uklanjati profilnu sliku, koja je najbolja za prikaz profila u kutijici. Pratim Djokovica stalno i ne mislim da se mnogo promenio u odnosu na 2011. Uostalom na stranici Roger Federer profilna slika je iz 2009. godine? Pozdrav, uz razumevanje sto sam ti se na engleskoj viki, obratio na srpskom jeziku.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

KOS recognitions

Moved to Talk:Kosovo

Vanjagenije (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet archive

Hi, about a year and and half ago I had people create those Wikipedia accounts to side with me, when I did not know that it was against the rules. I now know better and have been very good at following the rules every since. When going through deleted Wikipedia articles I saw a deleted Wikipedia sockpuppet archive, so I think this means that sockpuppet archives can be deleted. Since this was over a year ago, and I have not re-offended is is possible to get my sock puppet archive deleted? I am very sorry for what I did and I promise I won't re-offend. I am asking to this because you are the same administrator who oversaw my sockpuppet archive. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: No. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette

Please revisit your closure, which was premature as IP 174.112.21.209 is again active today. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism Sockpuppet help

Please help- This page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chhota_Shakeel repeatedly is being undone in terms of an edit and reverted back to the one made by someone you have confirmed as a sockpuppet.An admin has to revert it back and move the page to Non living persons. This was my message to the last person who made the revert.Please check.

This article needs to be edited by an administrator as it being vandalised and deliberate attempts are being made to subdue factual information published.I am a journalist and these articles confirm that the subject's article should be moved to non-living people biographies.Please help.Why have you undone reliable edits which have cited sources?

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/Organised-Crime-and-International-Politics-in-Asia.shtml

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Mumbai-s-Dreaded-Underworl-by-Rob-Williamson-Gangsters_Secret-Empire_Secret-Ops-181212-603.html 202.134.172.85 (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly did I undone reliable edits which have cited sources? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Full scope of Croatian language

Why are you supporting user TaivoLinguist who is openly advocating against the full scope of modern Croatian language, most recently in talk pages of several articles, like here and here? You are very well aware that for several years now he is trying to reduce Croatian language to Štokavian variant only, by claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants do not belong within the scope of modern Croatian language. But, those are his views. On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views. Sorabino (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss reviving page Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector)

Hi Vanjagenije, I note that you were the editor who implemented the deletion/merge of Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) into 2012 Munich artworks discovery in 2017, following a consensus (fairly small: 3 or 4 for, 1 against) that this was the preferred action. As I note on the Talk:2012 Munich artworks discovery page:

"With the passage of 5 years since the comment above, I would like to suggest reopening the case for a page on Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) as distinct from this page. His life story is interesting, he is a notable person by many criteria (newspaper articles etc.) and while he was alive, made efforts to solicit and address claims for restitution of potential stolen items, a course of action which was not required under German law as I understand. He subsequently bequeathed his collection - variously valued at up to 2 billion euros - to the Museum of Fine Arts Bern, which is currently (or has recently) shown the collection in a major exhibition. So I believe he does deserve his own page, following the initial media frenzy following the existence of his collection becoming known to the outside world in 2013, along with the suggestions that much or all of it represented Nazi loot (which appears to be at least an oversimplification - the Bern Museum is undertaking a thorough investigation and has agreed to keep only works acquired legitimately). Thoughts, anyone, and if you agree, what is required to be done? Tony 1212 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW the last version of the page before it was deleted (merged with 2012 Munich artworks discovery) is here: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cornelius_Gurlitt_(art_collector)&oldid=795425688, dated 14 August 2017. The previous discussion RE merging is available here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cornelius_Gurlitt_(art_collector). It looks like the page was initially deleted unilaterally, then contested, then discussed with a majority (4 for, 1 against) voting informally for merging, with the last comment on 28 September 2015.

Some recent information here: https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/gurlitt-trove-bern-bonn-shows-1137587"

The above represents my view that the person in question (Cornelius Gurlitt, junior) is sufficiently notable now to justify a page in his own right on Wikipedia, covering details of his life, his acquisition of the paintings and interaction with them while in his possession, and his subsequent choice of how they were disposed of. The actual "discovery" (as indicated by the relevant WP article) is one event in this saga but not really the whole picture, in my opinion. I would be interested to know if, with the passage of time after the initial "media frenzy", you could agree with me that his own page deserves to be reinstated. Best regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also I just discovered, the person in question is considered notable enough in Germany to have his own page on German wikipedia, see here:

• https://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cornelius_Gurlitt_(Kunstsammler)
• Translation: https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cornelius_Gurlitt_(Kunstsammler)

Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also if interested, there was a fairly long discussion on German WP back in 2013 whether to delete or keep that page. The result was: "Keep" ("The topic and Mr. Gurlitt have lasting relevance."). see https://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/11._November_2013#Cornelius_Gurlitt_(Kunstsammler)_(bleibt) Tony 1212 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije, for your comment left yesterday on Talk:2012_Munich_artworks_discovery#Cornelius_Gurlitt, we can progress further there as needed. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Zephrine SPI

Hi Vanja, I'm not sure what happened, but all of the user talk block messages indicate that they're socks of هکمت rather than Zephrine. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@DoRD: Yes, I've noticed that. I don't know. Maybe I did something wrong. But, I don't think it's a big deal, هکمت is also part of that group, so everything is clear. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why “Stop icon” “This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at University of Georgia School of Law, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.”

I got a notice “Stop icon” “This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at University of Georgia School of Law, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.” I have been having trouble getting captions on photographs— I have NOT been vandalizing the University of Georgia School of Law or any other page. What caused you to think I vandalized? Quaerens-veritatem 11:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: What caused you to think that I left that message? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: I have removed it, I got the same message, 161.73.194.241 (talk · contribs) (who left the message) had now been blocked by Vanjagenije, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP adding uw-vandalism4 notices. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije! Too say the least, I was shocked, chagrined and confused. 😅 Quaerens-veritatem 11:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP has now reverted their unblock decline template 3 times, it might be worth revoking their talk page access. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Already done by 331dot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marićevića jaruga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orašac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet - Alexandra Daddario

Hi. I have just blocked this user, who seems almost certainly to be related to this case. As the case is archived can you please advise on the correct process? Thanks TigerShark (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@TigerShark: Well, that's it. There is nothing more to do. WP:SPI is for sockpuppet investigations and there is nothing to investigate there. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Just thought I'd better check. TigerShark (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Erotic Diary of an Office Lady Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Erotic Diary of an Office Lady Cover.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)