User talk:Vanamonde93 - Wikipedia

Hi Vanamonde93,

We had earlier posted content on Wikipedia on the PSTS Group. We had seen an article published on TVS Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVS_Group. We wanted PSTS to get a recognition along similar lines. So we tried to publish an article on PSTS Group. This article was deleted under (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). We have reworked the article and deleted any marketing references in the same. The article is given below. Kindly advise whether we can publish the article now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjulag (talk • contribs)

@Anjulag: Hi there. I have removed the article you pasted here because this is not really the place (and it messed up the formatting) but don't worry, I took a look at it. There are still some matters of concern. First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Subjects don't have articles so that they can receive recognition: articles are created about a subject if it can be shown that the subject is notable. I am still unsure if your article meets our standard for notability. Second, and more importantly, from what you have said it sounds like you have a conflict of interest with respect to this subject. Please read the linked guideline carefully. If, after reading the various links I have posted here, you still believe that you can create an appropriate page, I would strongly suggest using the Articles for Creation process. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was about to review the article, but the article needs a lot of touch up with the grammar and MOS, so I suggest you to place a request at WP:GOCE, before someone reviews the article. Subsequently, I nominated the review page I have created under CSD G7 because it is of no use (rationale provided) and for now because the guild has a severe backlog and it would take no less than a month, so I (or another reviewer) will do it after the ce is complete. I did the closing procedures per WP:GAN/I. The article also needs and infobox, try {{Infobox military operation}}. Vanamonde, please do not consider this as a fail, but something like just a procedural close. After the review page is deleted, kindly update the |page= parameter in GA nominee template to 1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I'm not sure precisely what you are doing here. You are well within your rights to fail the nomination, but if you think the issues are solvable, surely putting it on hold would be more usual? Also, as somebody who copy edits for the GOCE, I'm fairly sure that the article is free of major grammar issueschool, and the GOCE is also not going to to address very specific MOS comments you may have. In any case, I now have no way of knowing what those issues are. Karellen93 (talk) ('s alternative account) 10:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Karellen93: All the stuff is now cleaned-up. From my part I sincerely advise a GOCE edit (they do comply with the MOS following their 5C policy), if you don't feel so, please, let us wait for another editor to take up the nomination. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're not understanding me: you seem to have specific issues with respect to MOS that you want fixed. Neither myself nor any potential copy-editor is psychic, and knows what those quibbles might be; which is why it would have been helpful for you to raise those on the review page and then putting the review on hold, rather than getting it speedied. That's all. (The other one's my alternative account, btw, no need to ping it). Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC))Reply

I just wanted to notify you about the fact that user Surtsicna continues to edit war at different royalties articles such as Princess Madeleine. Also being combative with me at his talk page. Ignoring any attempt to discuss the edit wars situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BabbaQ: I was offline, my apologies. I will take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

My main reason for contacting you is that Surtsicna refuses to discuss any matter at the talk pages of the articles he edits. But he sure has got the energy to report that other user for simply wanting him to discuss. It is a pattern that goes way back sadly. Just like now. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@BabbaQ: I took a look. While there is certainly sub-par behavior going on, a lot of it was before my warning to them at ANEW. In my view, this means that a second warning is pointless, and a block is not yet justified. Furthermore, the behavior of the "other side" has not been ideal either: there are several talk pages without any discussion whatsoever. So for now, I am not going to take any action: if the disruption gets worse, please report them back to ANEW, and in the meantime please make a sustained effort to discuss this issue. Vanamonde (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to make it clear that I am not part of the discussion. But neither parties that are supposed to discuss it have both removed my plea for them to do so at their respective talk pages. And no discussion has been initiated at the Princess talk page either. I guess or are inclined to believe that the edit war will continue once the article is unprotected. Hopefully they have both learned something. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

thank you. It just no need to remove it. It is a kind of ignoring messages. In arabic wikipedia it is not allowed to remove messages exept for archiving your talk page because no harm from let it and no benefit from removing it. Regards--مصعب (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @مصعب: perhaps, but this is English Wikipedia, and our policies are different. You have already been asked to read WP:OWNTALK. You really need to drop the stick. Pursuing this further, with any messages to me or other users, is likely to be considered disruptive, and can be met with a block. This is the last I want to hear of the subject. Please find something else to do. Vanamonde (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Vanamonde, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to start a new poll and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kudpung: I would do, except that I passed my RFA more than a month ago; and you were support number 29. I'd offer you a small fish of some sort, except that I have plenty of these moments too. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - my bad. That comes from working from an old list. Keep the fish, we breed our own and my wife sells them wet and fresh at the market. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kudpung: No worries, my friend, I know what you're trying to do and I appreciate it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vanamonde... on 10 October you issued a 24 hour block on User:BoBoMisiu for 3rr edit warring at Papal ban of Freemasonry (see User talk:BoBoMisiu#October 2016). Unfortunately, as soon as his block expired, the editor continued to edit war to retain the same text (not surprising, given the comments he made in responce to having his unblock request rejected)

Here are the diffs for his continued edit warring, all made since your block.

• diff 1,
• diff 2, and
• diff 3

He seems unrepentant, so I think a longer block may be in order. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Should I report this at ANI... or will you addressed it? Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, I didn't notice this for some reason, and then RL caught up with me. I'd rather not login to my main account right now (I'm on a phone) but I'll take a look soon as possible. If you want a response earlier than two hours from now, there's no harm in posting to ANEW. Regards, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, having taken a further look at this, I am not going to block at this point. Aside from the fact that Bobo's last edit was 24 hours ago, the frequency of reverts has also come down, and the other users (including yourself) are not blameless, either. Indeed, I am tempted to full-protect the page, and will do so if the dispute gets any worse. You folks are clearly able to have a moderately productive talk page discussion: why must you accompany it with continual reverts on the article? Vanamonde (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem, and thank you very much! Vanamonde (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry for contacting you again so soon. But could you take a look at this comment and several more from user Nableezy. I think that kind of language at an AfD is quite over the top. I mean no one else in the discussion uses swear words or insult like that. I might be overreacting but I rather contact you and let you just take a look at it than just let it pass. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

[1], [2], [3]. Here he even removes a comment from another user [4].--BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rather busy in RL: might be a few hours before I can take a detailed look. Vanamonde (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please Userfy the deleted Gerald Gurian article to my Userspace (including its full edit history)?

Background: I participated in, and you were the closer of, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Gurian. I agree there was clear consensus that Gerald Gurian is not Wikipedia-notable if more sources are not found. However I would like access to try to use its material to add something to one or more of the many Star Trek-related list-articles. And it may turn out that "Gerald Gurian" would usefully be a redirect to an item there, and if a redirect is going to exist, I would want it to include its edit history, so if GG does become more clearly notable, it can be restored properly as an article. I want to work with the material, and have access to see who added what, anyhow.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, doncram 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Doncram: sure, here you go: User:Doncram/Gerald_Gurian. You're probably well aware that the article should be substantially improved, particularly vis-a-vis GNG, before it's moved back to mainspace. Knock yourself out! Vanamonde (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Righto. Thanks! --doncram 04:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)) 00:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Gerda! Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You wrote on RfPP that you protected the article for three months, but judging by the protection log it seems like you forgot to protect it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah my internet seems to be a bit dodgy, I think the edit did not save. I've fixed it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thks. University, List of oldest universities in continuous operation, University of Bologna and a couple more are repeatedly being hit by a small group of people who insist that all higher learning originated in the Muslim world, and that al-Qarawiyyin, a madrasa founded in the 9th century is the oldest university in the world, absolutely refusing to accept that madrasas weren't, aren't and never have been universities by the mainstream definition of (mediaeval) universities, and that there were many schools for higher/advanced learning long before Islam even existed. So protection really is needed... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've already protected the list: I don't think protection is justified on the Bologna page just yet. Vanamonde (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's because it already is protected ;)

The previous protection expired on 10 May this year, and the disruptive edits started again the next day, which led to it being protected for a year, i.e. until 11 May 2017 (if you look at the protection log you'll find that University of Bologna has been semi-protected almost without interruption for more than a year now, and currently is protected for another five months). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why have you templated my user talk without templating my user page? "Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail."Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Anythingyouwant: I am under the impression that that wording is applicable to site bans, not topic bans; in any case, it is not being enforced elsewhere that I know of (fellow admins, please correct me if I'm wrong). That apart, I hardly think you want a badge of shame on your userpage, which leads me to believe that this post is just poking the bear. If you wish to actually appeal the sanction, go ahead, though I would not expect that to be successful. Otherwise, please leave it be, and go make useful contributions elsewhere. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, my purpose here is to probe the meaning of the rule so that I can follow the damn thing. I want to delete the template from my talk page, and not be site-banned in the process, and so I want to know what the rule means (because I realize that the text of a rule means nothing at Wikipedia compared to what a bunch of admins say it means). So you can take the WP:ABF and put it in the same place as your command that I "go make useful contributions elsewhere".  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I removed the template, since you say the rule is applicable only to site bans.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you had truly been interested in the whether you could remove the template, a simple question would have sufficed. Even in your reply, you feel the need to take an entirely unnecessary swipe at the process that sanctioned you. Hence my suggestion that you find better things to do. I trust that this is the last I have to hear of this, short of an actual appeal. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

A simple question would have revealed my goal, which would therefore have been more likely to be thwarted. Plus I believe in following Wikipedia's rules, and if the rules really require a template at my user page, then one should go there. I don't merely support following rules that work in my favor, your opinion notwithstanding. Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have started an appeal here. Please advise if I have to do anything else, such as provide notifications. May I place a notification at the talk page of the Donald Trump article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would strongly recommend not placing such a notification. It is likely to be seen as canvassing (even if the intent is otherwise), we are discussing an issue that is fundamentally about behaviour, and a notification is likely to bring both sides of the Trump dispute out in force, creating a lot of heat but little light. Finally, the topic ban allows an exception for appeals, but not for discussion elsewhere; a notice could easily be seen as a tban violation. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 09:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re [5], I slept on it and it still bugs me. Why not use the same account for both edits? We're expected to investigate possible alt-accounts first? Sheesh. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Mandruss: Well, the signature itself acknowledges the alternative account, so I don't think I'm hiding anything...the reason why is pretty simple. I do most of my editing with my main account on my computer. My alt account is the one I use on my phone, because I don't want the admin buttons there; too much potential for accident, not secure enough, etc. But if I don't have access to my computer, I try to monitor things with my phone. And yesterday while doing so I felt I should make my meaning clearer. Does that answer your question? Cheers, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see the issue now; I left my original sig on the post yesterday! I could perhaps have avoided some confusion by signing again, I suppose. Cheers, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That, plus some indication of alt account in the editsum, would help greatly. I realize it's easy to assume that everybody already knows, in the places you hang out. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply on the Vandalism page.
I have a question, how do I properly warn someone that edits using just an IP address?
Normally I would go to a User's talk page, but I can't do that now. I am fairly new to this.
Amin (Talk) 07:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. IPs can be warned just like any other user accounts. In your case, Special:Contributions/37.76.85.1, as you can see, does have a talk page (though red-linked, since no one has posted anything so far). For general warning of editors, the semi-automatic tool WP:TWINKLE is highly recommended; note that it can do a lot of other tedious tasks too quickly. Let me know if you have any issues, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ugog Nizdast: Thank you. Amin (Talk) 08:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Update: @Vanamonde93: @Ugog Nizdast: .. the IP user has continued the malicious edits, and I have updated the Vandalism page. I hope someone can weigh in on this, or better yet, block the user from from editing the page in question. Amin (Talk) 09:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I know you don't take sides in content disputes, but please can you revert the page to this verison from before the content dispute please? I am asking for this beacause the current one, if you review it closely, is full of POV's that sould not be there at all, the user keeps re-adding them constantly. Discussion has started on the talk page and the user [has been reported], but the current verison is just not acceptable per WP:POV. Thank you in advanse!--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no. As you said, I do not take sides in a content dispute. The exception might be if the protection had left blatant vandalism, or BLP violations, in the article. So far as I can see, it has not. What you need to do is establish consensus for one version on the talk page. I'm not saying the current version is fine; but a POV dispute over the score of a single match between fans of two football teams is not near serious enough for me to dive in and take a side. Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have seen this [6]. I am not LanguageXpert. If you doubt I am ready to abuse badly to LanguageXpert. Whatever abuse you ask me to. Even If you say me to not edit. Next time I will not edit. OK ? But I just wanted to tell you all that Punjabi dialects articles were introduced to Wikipedia by a user Khalid Mehmood back in 2008-2011. He was an honourable wikipedian who was invited to Wikimania12 in Washgton DC and Wikimania14 in London. He just died [7] . LanguageXpert came in to picture in Nov 2012. He is not a owner of Punjabi dialects. Internet is full with people who mention Punjabi dialects [8][9][10][11]. Are all those socks of LanguageXpert ? Linguists from Grierson to Cardona mention Punjabi dialects. Are they all sock of LanguageXpert? Ironically Khalid Mehmood was also probed as Language Xpert. Even SheriffIsInTown and Yoyi ling were probed as LanguageXpert because they favour Punjabi dialects. I saw about 25 IPs starting from 39.32.... Or 39.47.... were also SPIed as LanguageXpert. My series was never 39.47/ 39.32. Those IPs are specific to Islamabad city. While IP series 39..... represents all north Pakistan. My point is that if some one speaks Pakistani English edits Punjabi dialects then is he sock of LanguageXpert ? No No No. It is wrong perception. Another question LanguageXpert was blocked for 3Rs volitions. Then why not User Uanfala for same violation on Saraiki dialect page? He deserve even more severe punishment when he Forumshops and after failed of talk page discussions / Move requests / Move reviews / Mediation requests / Dispute resolutions starts editing tendentiously and edit wars. He had difference of opinion with many users but he kept on edit wars. If LanguageXpert was blocked in 2012 then why not User Uanfala ? Next time I will not edit. OK ? I am ₯€₠€₯ not F...Xpert.

One more thing there can be an error in you Sock investigation because the 15 last blocked users never edited any language page then how can they be LanguageXpert ? Last LanguageXpert sock may be User:Raniishaa last edit July 2016 [12].

Honestly, I'm not interested. Multiple editors that I trust, who are more familiar with the situation, have said that you are LanguageExpert: but even if you aren't, it doesn't really matter, because you were not really editing in a policy-based manner in any case. You need to go take a long hard look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, and especially at WP:RS, and thoroughly understand those before attempting anything else. I don't want to hear more about the dreary history of this dispute. Vanamonde (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! As you may know, this November is Asian Women Month, hosted by Wikipedia Asian Month and WikiWomen In Red. Our goal is to encourage coverage of Asian women in order to help overcome the Asian content gender gap. Asian Women Month observes the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month. You will receive a special Asian Women Month barnstar if you create four articles in accordance with the rules for the event, as well as a postcard sent from an Asian community! Thanks for your consideration. Read more here! -Rimmel.Edits Talk 02:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event:

1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
5. Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions.
6. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I refer to your decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable). I have put these comments on the page but will repeat them here as otyherwise I am not sure that you will see them. I reported Dino nam for edit-warring, not 3RR. I don't see how this "report is stale" as I made the complaint on 31 October and you looked at it on 2 November. Your comment that "both of you stop warring and try to reach a consensus" ignores the fact that I reported Dino nam for edit-warring and have tried to resolve this on the talk page. What is the point of making an edit-warring complaint if this is how its supposedly resolved? I look forward to receiving your response. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

And I have removed your post there, because you shouldn't be editing the archived version. It is true that users can edit-war without breaching 3RR. However, on both the pages you linked, Dino nam had performed two reverts, separated by 22 hours or so. That was not near enough for me to block. Furthermore, you, too, had performed more reverts than was ideal. Finally, please take a look at the WP:Blocking policy. It says that blocks should be preventive, not punitive. I could not have reasonably blocked Dino nam on 2 november for reverts on 31 October: because that would have been punitive. Therefore, the report was stale, when I looked at it. Now I would certainly agree that the report should have been acted upon sooner: but this is a collective failing of Wikipedia, and a symptom of an admin shortage, and hardly my own shortcoming: I closed the report soon after I saw it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you look at Dino nam's talk page and block history you will see that this is a regular pattern of his POV-pushing style. I tried to revert back to the established consensus but you say I "had performed more reverts than was ideal" It seems that there is no point in complaining about edit-warring on the Admin Noticeboard if it isn't a 3RR and given the boomerang potential it all seems rather stacked. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you feel that way. As somebody who has had their share of reports declined, believe me, I know how you feel. I urge you to consider the possibility that bad behavior is not always sanctionable, and that the system might still be generally worth investing time in, even if it didn't give you exactly the result you wanted. Vanamonde (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Cameron11598: Thank you: I've filled the form. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you probably remember the recent discussion at User talk:RegentsPark#Punjabi dialects, which resulted in some articles on Western Punjabi dialects receiving semi-protection + pending changes. Do you think the same should also happen for Derawali dialect‎, Multani dialect‎, Thalochi dialect‎ and Jatki‎? After I cleaned up the leftovers of the edits of languageXpert and his socks, a diligent IP has turned up reverting my edits. Something similar appears to be also happening at Chhachi dialect‎, as its protection has expired. – Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Vanamonde93,

You recently made changes on the Harry Michaels Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Michaels).

The page has been subject to vanadalism and is being used to harass Mr. Michaels.

Given such violations is it possible for speedy deletion or the permanent protection of the page?

Thanks! Z