User talk:SantiLak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for visiting my talk page. I am usually not available until 4 pm PST on weekdays so if I don't respond to a message just wait a bit. Also almost all comments by an IP user starting with 2.1 which are all over the page are harassment due to an editing dispute and should be ignored


Your submission at AfC Arcadia Police Department was accepted[edit]

Arcadia Police Department, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

hewhoamareismyself 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Truth About Guns was accepted[edit]

The Truth About Guns, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S. territory gun law articles[edit]

Hello. Thanks for creating those four U.S. territory gun law articles. You might know this already, but the summary tables from all the state (and territory) gun law articles are transcluded into the Gun laws in the United States by state article. I've added the transclusions for the new articles there, if that makes any sense. You can see them near the bottom of the article, in the "US territories" section. Mudwater (Talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits at List of secret police organizations: suggestions[edit]

Hi, thanks for attempting to improve the List of secret police organizations article. You did nothing wrong there but given the extremely controversial nature of the article it would be grateful if you could find newspaper citations as they are more solid than web links. Also, make sure that you include short quotes from the newspaper article body that clearly reference them as secret police organisations. That would improve the reliability of your entries by a lot. if you have access to Nexis, take advantage of it and give priority to articles that appeared on printed versions of Newspapers. Thanks! --Marianian(talk) 11:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice and I understand why some of the links that aren't newspaper articles would be less solid than others but it seems to me that articles from The Economist and Foreign Policy Magazine and BBC News are pretty reliable and especially the first two considering that they are well known for expert world news articles. In the future I'll make sure to use that referencing format. Thanks! --SantiLak(talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Elections and Referendums article tagging[edit]

Hi Santilak. Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 57 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi: sorry that I had to step in to remove a disruptive message by an anonymous editor in your talk page. It looks like the user is trying to cause edit-warring, in which case you should ask to reinstate semi protection for Sea Gate, Brooklyn. --Marianian(talk) 12:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. SantiLak (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (TTAG) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating TTAG, SantiLak!

Wikipedia editor Missionedit just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:


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

Learn more about page curation.

Your submission at AfC Sierra Madre Police Department was accepted[edit]

Sierra Madre Police Department, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 08:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

St. Pete[edit]

That was quick! Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One Child Policy heading change[edit]

I changed the section heading Alleged birth reduction to Overstatement of effect on birth reduction. This change was reverted with the explanation that "Alleged is more accurate and "overstatement" is opinionated". It also said 'good faith edits', I'm not sure if this means that it was reverted in good faith, or that I had changed it in bad faith. Anyway, the section is about how Zhai Zhenwu's estimation of 400 million births prevented is disputed by Wang Feng, who estimates the figure at 200 million; i.e. Wang is accusing Zhai of overestimating/overstating the one-child policy's effect on population growth. This means that my word choice, overstated is actually accurate, and nothing to do with my personal opinion. However, Alleged birth reduction implies that the assertion that there has been an effect on birth reduction at all is in dispute, when in fact both Wang and Zhai agree that the policy has had an affect on birth reduction, the effect is not 'alleged', it is only the scale of that effect that is in dispute vis. 200 million versus 400 million; either way it has had a pretty big impact according to the evidence presented in the section; nothing in this section suggests that there has been zero impact, therefore alleged is inaccurate word choice, although I wouldn't say it's opinionated... I'm not sure what opinion it would indicate, or about what... InternationalistChap (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the problem; I'm not saying that the criticism of the policy's effect on fertility is overstated, I am saying that the criticism is that the government's claims of the policy's effect on fertility are overstated; i.e. China, quoting Zhai, is claiming that the one child policy has had the positive effect of preventing 400 million births--the criticism is that this positive effect has been exaggerated/overstated and may be half as significant as it is claimed. Thus, the criticism itself is that there has been an Overstatement of [the policy's] effect on birth reduction.InternationalistChap (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Zainab bint Muhammad[edit]

Please stop reverting my edit. The blatant contradiction of reverting is plain for all to see: 1.The same article mentions that Sunnis believe she was a legitimate daughter of Muhammad. 2.The article mentions Sunnis believe she married Uthman, who is plainly not of Banu Hashim. 3.After these 1st 2 points how can you then accept a statement that says Muhammad's daughters were only allowed to marry Banu Hashim? Assuming it is even true and quoted properly & not out of context, this is 1 Sunnis view against the Sunni consensus. That does not legitimise its inclusion - especially such a large inclusion. Thanks. (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So i read your post on my talk pg. But how can you say that i need a cite when there is already a cite in that very page that supports my statement? i.e. The famous Sunni scholar Yusuf ibn abd al-Barr says: "His children born of Khadīja are four daughters; there is no difference of opinion about that".[6] So this cite says that Sunni consensus is that she was a daughter of Muhammad. Then this is directly contradicted beneath with claims she isn't. Furthermore, the section below mentions that she was married to Uthman (including cite) i.e. Ruqayyah and after her death Umm Kulthum were married to Uthman ibn Affan who belonged to the Banu Umayya clan of the Quraish tribe.[7] So this clearly proves the falsehood of the section you want reverted to i.e. 1. We have a Sunni source saying she is his daughter. 2. We have another Sunni source saying she married Uthman. Therefore, to include a "Sunni" source that Muhammads daughters could only marry Banu Hashim is a clear falsehood. I suspect the source is either misquoted or deliberately falsified by a wiki editor. I could try and verify my suspicion but that could take time, especially if the reference pages etc are just made-up. (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
So i just read your reply, however, it makes no sense to me why a statement that contradicts the Sunni consensus can then be included as a legitimate Sunni position. Furthermore, how can a fringe view (assuming it does exist) be given so much weight in the article? If anything, it should be significantly cut down. I see this scenario as being analogous to scientific consensus being that water is composed of H2O, however, 1 scientist then states that it is composed of H4O...Can we then add this in the relevant article by simply adding a citation to the lone and unaccepted view? Likewise, this is 1 Sunnis view that should either be ignored or significantly cut down to mirror its insignificant weight and acceptance. (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing Dispute over State Bar[edit]

You are engaged in edit-warring: without once discussing it, in less than 24 hours, 6 separate times you deleted quotations and links from the page on the California State Bar[1] All of the quotations removed were sourced criticisms of a public entity, including quotations from a published court decision.--User:, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been removing what has been vandalism by you. At the beginning when you started to add those things I suggested that you find reliable sources and that you move the criticism section to lower in the article. In response you didn't and you put the criticism section at the top. Instead of just deleting your material again because you seemed to just revert it, I decided to research it and found some criticism of the bar with reliable sources and added it along with restructuring the criticism section and moving it lower in the page where it belongs as the criticism section is in almost all wikipedia articles. Now to your sources, your first one is Attorney Busters which is a totally unreliable source, the second one is from a law firm's petition and is their arguments and not encyclopedic material, the third one is a quote from an opinion that is taken way out of context to construed by you as admonishment when if you read it is just them stating that the State Bar does not regulate practice in federal court which is true and that is not criticism, it is just them stating that in their opinion. [2] Your final source is just as out of context as the third. It is from the state bar president describing how he wants to change the state bar and improve it. He discusses how their job is analogous of that of a criminal prosecutor in order to describe the difficulties they have in prosecuting cases against bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how the professional discipline of attorneys is not about punishment and how their job is really to deter misconduct and if necessary remove bad attorneys, you took it out of context. He discusses how there is an incredible backlog of misconduct cases and how he is planning to remove the backlog of disciplinary cases, you take it out of context. You took all of his quotes out of context in an attempt to construe them as criticism. I added legitimate and reliably source information in order add to the encyclopedic credibility of the article but instead you removed it. You are the one engaged in edit warring by continuously adding your unreliably sourced and out of context information and removing the additions I made which have reliable sources. Please stop adding those things to wikipedia. On a final note I changed the section title in my talk page because it seemed more appropriate considering that we are having an edit dispute and opinions have no place in wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I did discuss it, you didn't. You just reverted my edits and then added a warning even though you don't understand how they workSantiLak (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

IP User Adding Warnings in attempt to Vandalize Talk Page[edit]

Wikipedia policy is that Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. You have take screenshots of commercial logos and uploaded them without obtaining the permission of the businesses and corporations that own that content, one of whom has filed a copyright take down notice against you. Oddly, you claim that the graphics and logos of several business are not afforded intellectual property protection. Please review copyright law and Wikipedia's copyright policy before you get yourself into any more trouble: see --User:, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, it seems you are just so annoyed with me removing your unreliably sourced and out of context information that you are just going through my contributions and harassing me about them. Well for your information, because the logos only consist of "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain." This is well established policy when it comes to company logos. SantiLak (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I did discuss them, you just don't like my accurate edits so you are doing what the Russian IP user is doing, copying and pasting warnings because you don't even understand how the work in an attempt to scare me away from removing your vandalism. SantiLak (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Hi, I think you should do like what I did and semi-protect your user page. Some anonymous editors just know no bounds. --Marianian(talk) 05:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I definitely would but I don't know how I could do it. Any suggestions because I've been editing for a while but I have never dealt with an anonymous user who acts like the ones have in the last few days. SantiLak (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You should go to WP:RPP, and in the section "Current requests for increase in protection level", ask for indefinite semi-protection of your user page because of defamatory edits by anonymous editors. --Marianian(talk) 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea but I think I will wait until the one IP comes back to see if they stop. I don't want to act preemptively and get denied protection because nothing is happening to my page as much as I would prefer my page to be protected. Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. SantiLak (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't panic. I got semi-protection for my page after just one incident and I am getting a bit worried about your page being messed up (it just happened again). --Marianian(talk) 20:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It still seems like a good idea but whenever I go to WP:RPP. a lot of pages get denied because they only have like two malicious edits over the course of a couple of days. SantiLak (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that possibility is much less likely since I had to revert another harassment edit on your user page by IP There is a good case for indefinite semi-protection of your user page and you are advised to take advantage of this feature to reduce such vandalism. --Marianian(talk) 03:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Battalions of territorial defense in Ukraine[edit]

Hi, Have asked admins to protect the Battalions of territorial defense in Ukraine page due to constant vandalism by New/ip address users. D Eaketts (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely, now the IP user has made an account and is continuing their vandalism. It has to stop. SantiLak (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears to have already been protected. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring Accusations By IP User[edit]

These are facts:

You have made 10 reverts in less than 24 hours on a single article. You made 9 of those reverts without once discussing it, and only after the 10th time wrote a comment on the talk page. I am the fourth user +1 Admin to politely ask you to comply with Wikipedia's rule: "Do Not Edit War Even if You Believe You Are Right." You are even edit warring on your own Talk Page and have simply erased points for discussion and collaboration by 7 separate users. (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll humor you and leave the warning there. The 4 separate IP users are you, one of your other IP's that you use, and two sockpuppets of a blocked russian IP. The admin was concerning something else that is similar to what you are doing. Not discussing it. I have brought it up in my talk page, your talk page, the state bar's talk page. You haven't responded. Technically you are edit warring because you are not discussing it. You are just posting warnings on my page in an attempt to slander me. The admin had a point and I responded to their concerns. You don't. All you are doing is adding unreliable sources and out of context sources to an article. I tried to fix the article by adding a criticism section with neutral and reliable sources but it seems you can't accept anything but your edits. I am not edit warring on my talk page. I removed the warnings that you and other IP users have added on here in an attempt to vandalize my talk page. It is one thing to post something to discuss but all you are doing is trying to vandalize my talk page and refuse to discuss. SantiLak (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Your Talk Page History clearly shows that you erase points presented for discussion, and even rewrite titles (as you did for this section). You are having a discussion with yourself when you erase the points that others raise to discuss with you; You could leave the points people raise and comment under them instead of simply erasing them. Your Talk Page History speaks volumes:

Thank you for your consideration. (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I do attempt to have a discussion but posting a copied and pasted warning is not part of responding in a discussion. You need to address points brought up by others regarding your edits. So far you haven't responded to any of my points all you have done is repeat the same accusations after I have responded to them. Now you are going around and reverting my edits to other pages. That is harassment. You obviously don't care to discuss it anywhere. You don't want to discuss the points I brought up in your talk page, here, or on the article talk page. What part of discussion do you not understand. I don't think adding neutral titles to a discussion is bad at all, in fact it is quite a good thing. I don't erase points presented for discussion and in fact I leave them in. All I did was delete your copied and pasted warnings that you added to my page along with the ones added by a russian IP user. SantiLak (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Among your points, you claim that I am a "russian IP." I'm supposed to discuss this? OK. I am not Russian. (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not say you were a Russian IP. I said that you, one of your other IP's, and two Russian users were the ones that had posted those warnings on my page. Again you aren't discussing the important thing which is the article. SantiLak (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!![edit]

Hello, SantiLak, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 12:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

STiki logo.png

Priority Rapmasters series[edit]

Thank you for the positive feedback on my articles for the 4th and 5th volumes of Priority's Rapmasters series!

What can I say, you did an excellent job SantiLak (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

An Honest Liar[edit]

Thanks. Out of curiosity, when you review a new article (which appears to me to be a rather new practice), what are you reviewing it for? Is it just to see that it's not incoherent nonsense vandalism, or is it to make sure that it has two or three secondary sources for notability, etc.? Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

When I review articles I really look at the editor and their edit count. If the editor, like you has thousands of edits then I know that they are not only reliable but their article is most likely good. If I see a user with 25 edits I usually check to see it isn't some copied and pasted nonsense. I also check for sources and look for articles that might not necessarily need deletion but definitely need improvement and I tag them. SantiLak (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Carla Quevedo was accepted[edit]

Carla Quevedo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

JacobiJonesJr (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I'm not good at English but want to know why you removed what I wrote. You said it didn't appear constructive. But it appeared constructive for me. I want to know your opinion in detail about this.-- (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

SantiLak has already been reported by several users for habitually vandalizing articles. An Admin blocked him for several days from reverting edits, and now he is back at it. Don't waste your time with this guy; take it to an Admin. It's getting absurd. (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You are the only user who has reported me and that same Admin told you to discuss the issues and that the edits weren't vandalism. If you want you can check my user block log, I've never been blocked. SantiLak (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
What an Admin said to SantiLak: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Arontrice. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Exactly and I did resolve it by discussing it with Callanecc and deciding to wait for the discussion until Arontrice's blocking period had expired. Can you please stop harassing me on my talk page and instead work to resolve the issues on the state bar page. SantiLak (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
They were, you were linking conspiracy links to a page. That is un-constructive. SantiLak (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fast reply. You should read the book I referred to. They are family. It is true.-- (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a conspiracy theory, not a fact. As this is an encyclopedia it has no place. SantiLak (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Your removing was too fast for you to go to the library. You must not have read the bibliography.-- (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't take that long of a look to realize what it is, a conspiracy theory. I did look at it later on and it still looked like a conspiracy theory, and again now I looked back and it still looks like a conspiracy theory. I would also suggest sticking with one IP address in order to make it more simple to be contacted. SantiLak (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Then, can you prove that they are not family?-- (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You have to prove that when you add material by citing verifiable sources. This is not a place where information is true until proven false. It is a place where you must prove the information is true to add it onto wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Then, can you prove that the bibliography is not verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel like you are confused by what I just said, you need to provided verifiable and reliable sources to back up your claims and provide relevance for them to be in the articles. The sources you provided weren't. Again this is not a place where information is true until proven false. It is a place where you must prove the information is true to add it onto wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not confused. A family tree is verifiable. You can trace their names.-- (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That reference didn't link to a family tree, it linked to the wikipedia article Jap. It also didn't come from a verifiable source. You also failed to prove it's relevance in the article. SantiLak (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is only author's name that linked to the Wikipedia article Jap. Please go to the library to read his work. Where it linked does not matter.-- (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is important because it does not link to a verifiable source which is how people can know that the information you add is accurate. SantiLak (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Then, if I stop the author's link, can I write the article again?-- (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
How about this, post your reliable and verifiable source here and let me see. SantiLak (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I did write the source three times and you removed it without seeing if it is verifiable by going to the library. But the source is recorded. And you are wise enough to go to the library and read the bibliography. Too wise to decide it is not verifiable only by visiting the Wikipedia article Jap, I believe. I need not post, I think.-- (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is just the same source again then, no, you shouldn't add it again because it is not reliable or verifiable and yes I did check the source. SantiLak (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What point on the work did you think it as not reliable or verifiable by?-- (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I could not get your message written anywhere else.-- (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Foreign-language articles[edit]

Thanks for patrolling new pages, an important and under-recognised task, but Batalovo evanđelje was hardly a "very short" article as required for WP:CSD#A1. In fact, foreign-language articles should not be automatically deleted: there is a template {{notenglish}} which can be used, and provides links to WP:Pages needing translation where they can be listed to see if anyone is able to provide a useful translation. If they linger there for two weeks, they are usually PRODded. There is advice about this at WP:NPP#Dealing with foreign language new pages.

One thing that is worth doing is to feed a few sentences into Google, which may show that, as in this case, the page needs to be deleted as a copyvio.

There are some useful templates, many of the bilingual, listed at WP:PNT/T, for pointing foreign-language contributors to their home WP - many newbies don't know that any others exist. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wenlepore Message[edit]

Wenlepore (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)thanks SantiLakWenlepore (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Dear SantiLak, i wrote the texts abou Savinja and Šalek Valley on the wikitravel as well, so I have all the rights on the text. I wonder if it is not permited to post my own texts to Wikipedia? Is there a problem if the same articles are on two different websites? Thanks for answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketinka1 (talkcontribs) 07:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Copying and pasting material is against wikipedia policy. SantiLak (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for patrolling new pages, but WP:CSD#A11 is meant for things like new joke "religions" or drinking games, not for actual people like Florentino alvarez and Valentina alvarez. They haven't been "invented" - they are real people, just not encyclopedia-worthy. The right tag there would be {{db-person}}, and I have deleted them under that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello SantiLak. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created, as you did at Abdul-Karim Mohamad Awji. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. KJ Discuss? 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you would suggest that but I wouldn't do something like that for a page if it had a few words or even a sentence but the user just added a letter. That hasn't change in more than 30 minutes. Most of the CSD tags I add are for pages that are advertising, copied and pasted, incredibly short articles like the one referenced above, or articles made by users about themselves. I appreciate the advice. SantiLak (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi SantiLak

The page DiabeTV should not be eliminated because it refers to a company whose efforts are towards helping the people worldwide suffering with Diabetes mellitus or Prediabetes, and also giving tips to those who do not suffer the decease, but live with or know someone that does. Currently, doing a quick check of their facebook profiles (three languages), made me realize they have more than a quarter million followers from Argentina to US and India, and their articles receive good feedback from the Diabetes community.

Returning to the point of keeping the webpage, i asked myself a couple questions before submitting the content and creating the wiki page "Is it a company whose core focus involves helping people around the world? Yes it is... Is diabetes a 3 day decease easily eliminated? No it is not... Does this company's mission and vision have an honest and non-profitable essence? Yes it looks like. The point is that, maybe with some revisions to the article, we can work in a way for people to discover and know more about this company and the works it does, because talking from a personal point of view (i'm diabetic) since i found this page i have been enjoying their articles and newsletters and my wife cooks their recipes and uses their advice. They work to inform and educate in easy terms, there is not much medical jargon and for people without diabetes its easier to read and relate with.

Finally we should look at some facts: 1-The company website does not contain any type of advertisement or promotional material. Is truly a helping page. 2- "As many as three million Americans may have T1D. Diabetes currently affects more than 371 million people worldwide and is expected to affect 552 million by 2030. In the U.S., a new case of diabetes is diagnosed every 30 seconds; more than 1.9 million people are diagnosed each year" [1] So the more help there is for diabetics, the better. Thanks Tavob (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Tabob

This post is irrelevant as the page has been deleted due to the reasons that I nominated it for. SantiLak (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jump up ^ From JDRF -An organization dedicated to funding diabetics research


is my wish. but please dont delete my head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Mohnani (talkcontribs) 09:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This message is irrelevant as an admin has already deleted your page. SantiLak (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Oh god, I really don't understand what exactly I should do to post on (talk) page. I might have done wrong in previous attempt. Copy pasting my previous message here.

Yes I removed the speedy deletion tag twice , because I didn't know about it and wikipedia warning page asked me to make necessary changes to it. I made changes and I admit I was a noob in doing so. But I also said " I will not remove the tag if added again" the moment I read that I shouldn't remove that tag. Please understand what I am trying to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socioblend (talkcontribs) 20:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


/* Controversies */[edit]

What is it you found objectionable. Please refer to the links on the page. The page mentions, it is managed and "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2014)"

Any answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That does't justify adding unsourced material that smears a the subject of the article. The tags in no way justify what is borderline vandalism and not to mention the fact that you are also ignoring NPOV guidelines. SantiLak (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

G11 speedies[edit]

Thanks for patrolling new pages, but WP:CSD#G11 is best kept for pages which are actually promotional in content. The recent Socioblend was undoubtedly promotional in intent, but that's a different thing; the text was quite neutral in tone. {{db-corp}} no credible indication of importance or significance was the right tag there. The thing is that notability, or rather A7-type "importance or significance" is a more fundamental problem. A "promotion" tag leads the author to think it can be rewritten to be acceptable by taking out a few adjectives, and if he is then A7-ed it can feel like we are moving the goalposts. Keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

When I first tagged it, it wasn't that neutral. The editor then changed the tone. SantiLak (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Forge 54[edit]

Hello SantiLak,

Please provide justification for Forge 54 deletion. Myself and thousands of members of the Southern California community would agree that a Forge 54 wiki encyclopedia article page would serve the community. Please let me know what you believe to be "ambiguous" so that I can make edits and improvements to the page. Thank you for your help.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhohener (talkcontribs) 23:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You have simply replicated the same page that was deleted earlier today. It is very promotional. Wikipedia is not made to help promote organizations or people. It is an encyclopedia. SantiLak (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Promotional information was removed from the article posted earlier today. Information was properly sited. Please illustrate some differences between Forge 54 and other less known non-profits that do have wikipedia pages. -jhohener — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhohener (talkcontribs) 23:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The article looks almost identical and it is still promotional. Also it is your duty to illustrate why it isn't promotional not mine to re-justify why I nominated it for deletion. SantiLak (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with SantiLak. It's not promotional. It's best to have an Admin look at this guy's Talk History. His behavior is getting abusive here. (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The article was deleted by an Admin, I'm not abusing any behavior, you are just going to all my talk page posts and adding responses. Please stop harassing me. SantiLak (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How rude[edit]

Seriously? My sillypeppymacspeed page was necessary and I don't fucking appreciate you flagging it. Meet me face to face in Detroit and we'll settle this out. Come on homeboy, come fite me. I'm a real gangster. i bet ur trap cat

I am a human being your article is not only insignificant but promotional and really a waste of time. It is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. SantiLak (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I hate you. You are so mean to me. Stop deleting my pages. You trap cat alien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee999 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You make absolutely no sense and I am a human not a trap cat alien. SantiLak (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rob Burger[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because it has been written and authorized by the musician himself, Rob Burger, so all facts are correct. He also controls the content on his website,, from which the information comes from and is the copyright holder for everything written on the Wikipedia page. He has submitted his consent to so I'm not sure why it is still being deleted.Cpg819 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Copying and pasting is against wikipedia policy and this message is irrelevant because the page. SantiLak (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete link for Panalba[edit]

There is no relationship between Panalba and famotidine. No article on Panalba exists. Please see the entry on FDA criticisms, in particular the section on FDA bias (with citation number 53): Hence, the redirection from Panalba to famotidine is erroneous and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilienfeld (talkcontribs) 23:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with me? SantiLak (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You signed the message to me on the redirect to Famotidine. I wanted to delete the redirect. You restored it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilienfeld (talkcontribs) 07:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Where you an IP user at the time, I can't find any of my contributions relating to that. Could you add a link to the page that you say I edited? SantiLak (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

edit to birth control[edit]

You reverted my edit of birth control. I don't know how to cite a source24.207.79.50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Try here. SantiLak (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Your RPP request was mostly granted. — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello SantiLak. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created, as you did at Umatilla Site (35 UM 1). It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it. - SantiLak (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

DMOZ Reversions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When you revert an addition in less than a minute, it's obvious you didn't bother to even look at it. What exactly was your reason for doing so? I understand this is election season, and you have every right to detest this or any other candidate. That does not give you the right to delete information others may find useful. (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You removed a link to relevant information at the attorney general's website and I felt that it was an unnecessary removal and yes I did look at it and it seemed to me that in an external links section, a link to a page with direct information on a politician and not a dmoz link would be more relevant. SantiLak (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia Guidelines are clear that we do not provide a linkmap of any sites. The AG site is listed. It is not necessary to also include a link to the biography page within it. It remains impossible for me to believe you reviewed all the links within the DMOZ link in less than a minute. (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine, remove the bio site but the dmoz link is not necessary as well and I don't read at 1 character per minute. It doesn't take me that long to look at a change usually when it is that small. I know what a dmoz link for a politician looks like and thats why I changed it. Some of those links are relevant but they should not be included as a dmoz link but with a direct external link. SantiLak (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, read the Guidelines. When there are "too many" external links, a link to a webguide or directory is encouraged instead. All links were removed from every US politician site in January, as "too many". That's why we now have links to DMOZ. This is not the time or place for you to refight that. Again, please do not let your personal feelings about the politician interfere with your Wikipedia editing. I just added information on the debate between the two Texas candidates for governor, including the link to the complete video. I have yet to find information on a debate already present when I go to add one, and that goes for races in all 50 states over many election cycles. You want to delete that too? How about the entire election article? All the cadidate articles? Would that make you happy? Would it? This is not a horse race, this is an election. An encyclopedia is a reference work, and that doesn't mean just providing a list of polling results. (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but when did I indicate that I cared what their politics were? I don't care whether democrat, republican, libertarian, green, socialist, or whatever I am a wikipedian at heart and I don't let my own opinions interfere with edits. I don't want to delete those things and the external links sections should be shortened to include only relevant links like to the attorney general's website or their page on ballotpedia but a dmoz link is unnecessary when what really should happen is the removal of unnecessary links and only adding relevant ones like ballotpedia or a state website. I am well aware that it is a references work but just adding a dmoz link isn't what needs to be done. SantiLak (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The information I edited was correct. for a list of current members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The point that you failed to understand was that you need to provide citations or at least a reference in an edit summary to support removal or else you can't remove thing from a list like that. SantiLak (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham[edit]

Why did you delete my edit to Lindsey Graham's page? It was cited and everything. It is simply common knowledge that this man is a queer in Washington DC! (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

They are allegations made by a blogger, not facts. Just because you add a citation does not make the source reliable, if you go anywhere on the internet you can find a site to support your claims for almost anything. SantiLak (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Miltary Police Article.[edit]


Could you please tell me what your expertise is regarding military matters please? Or what qualification/knowledge you hold to decide what goes on an article about the British Military (I note you are from Argentina). And justify why in your opinion a name that the RMPs are known military wide for, should not be on the WIki?

If you repeatedly revert my changes, then I will sign up for an account with the purpose of taking this matter further as I suspect this is either (a) you dislike being corrected (as your first excuse for removing the edit was that it was unreferenced, and then your second reason was you felt it was irrelevant (not sure how someone who has never served in the military and lives over the other side of the world is qualified to make that decision) , or (b) this is purely a nationalist issue due to (I suspect) the Falkland Islands.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am a first generation American with Argentinian citizenship. I am a wikipedian and I never insert my own opinion into articles. I removed them because the source you provided is not reliable as it is a rumor site. SantiLak (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Also I don't know why you are making all of these assumptions about me. Have you ever considered that your own edits may have not been constructive? SantiLak (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If you check SantiLak's Talk History, you will notice he has been cautioned by several editors and administrators, he is on the verge of being blocked if he keeps it up. (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If you look at my history you will notice I was warned once about a 3RR dispute I had with a Russian user who had been blocked by and Admin and I corrected the mistake. The other warnings are ones that you added without merit. I don't know how I'm on the verge of being blocked when I haven't done anything wrong. Why don't you try and discuss your edits on the State Bar talk page instead of harassing me here like you have done before. SantiLak (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Military Police[edit]

It doesn't matter if you feel it is unconstructive, everybody in the British Army refers to the RMPs colloquially as the Monkie's, or the singular Monkey. It refers to the red hat they wear which looks like the hats worn by show monkeys. Now stop changing the edit, as this is ridiculous as you are changing a major fact that is probably of interest to people looking up the RMP. You previously removed the edit for it lacked references, and now claim its not relevant to the article. If I'm honest, it appears more like you just want your own way. I also note previous criticisms of your editing style. Before you rush in, please consider how your behaviour towards casual editors such as myself (who are actually fairly qualified - .e.g. to Doctorate level) are likely to be put off making useful contributions to this tool.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence: (yes you probably dislike a wiki reference, but this wiki is edited by people with military experience for primary use by a military community - suggesting it is ok for illustration purposes).

None of those are really reliable. If you have a news article or something else that proves it then you can cite. The other things listed in my talk page are almost all IP users who are angry that I reverted their edits and just posted angry responses. My behavior towards IP users is totally appropriate and if you want to contribute more then just make an account instead of accusing me of being biased because of where I come from or because of the behavior of other IP users on my talk page. SantiLak (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A book on the history of RMP is not reliable? Why are you so determined abut this? You are making odd claims, those are totally appropriate and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You also need verifiability and proper citation on wikipedia, you can't just type in an amazon book. You need to follow wikipedia policy on what sources are reliable. I am determined to help you understand why because instead of trying to resolve this with discussion, you resorted to personal attacks and insinuated bias which is really insulting. SantiLak (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of attitude towards IP users[edit]

Your attitude towards IP users is not, as you claim, appropriate. A user does not need to sign up in order to be considered more constructive etc. please familiarise your self with the link below to familiarise yourself with wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a prejudice against IP users, just because I removed your edits because of the reasons listed in my responses above, doesn't mean I hate IP users. Maybe you should examine your own edits, because they have also been removed by another registered user. You are the one who suggested that in order to resolve the issues, that you might become a registered user in order to exhibit your credentials. Instead of examining your own edits for issues you used personal attacks and insinuated bias due to my dual-nationality. SantiLak (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
But your reasons are invalid, how on earth is a newspaper article better than a book or an official regimental association website. You also said I should register to be taken seriously, no where does Wikipedia say that is the case. I challenge you to respond to each reference I provided you and state why it is not hood enough, as you are just blanket responding. You have not evaluated the links, as nobody would say an official discussion on the origin of the term would insufficient, and one of the links even has a picture of an official history book discussing the term. I just wish you would consider my edits in their merits rather than getting annoyed that I corrected you with facts. I have checked my other edits. He made a good point nicknames do not belong their. I am happy with that, as I feel if one is listed both should be listed. But I also agree nicknames generally might not be appropriate on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you should register to be taken more seriously. You are the one who suggested that in order to resolve the issues, that you might become a registered user in order to exhibit your credentials. First if you are going to cite a book you need to follow the citation process you can't just point to an amazon link and say that this book has it, you have to give quotes from the book. Yahoo answers is never a reliable or verifiable source. The wiki site is also not a reliable source because it is a wiki site and also it is a rumor site and that is not reliable. Police oracle is a forum and is not reliable and Red monkey, while it may be an association of people with experience, they don't cite exterior sources and verifiability is shaky. By the way a newspaper or news article is not necessarily better than a book always when it comes to certain topics but is actually verifiable and we can tell whether it is reliable or not. I feel like this issue has been resolved now. SantiLak (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Quotes from the book? The title has the word monkey in it... I also gave you several pieces of evidence which suggest that it is a used term if you consider them all together. I've edited other articles and people have found that totally acceptable!. And yes the site is a rumour site, but if it's good enough to be used to support debates in the house of lords then it's acceptable as additional evidence. Really, i's an interesting point that people deserved to know, if the website was going to use the term redcaps. Seriously, please consider carefully. Withholding information is unfair too -- and your critique of the regimental website is totally wrong too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes you do need quotes from the book. It's part of wikipedia's referencing policies. I am not saying you are wrong and that they aren't used as terms to describe them but that you have to follow wikipedia referencing standards when doing it and that you also have to consider that the nicknames might not belong in the article as the other user pointed out. Being referenced in any legislative debate doesn't make a source necessarily reliable as they weren't referencing it as a source of information but as an example of an action taken on the site. I am not trying to withhold information, I am trying to follow wikipedia policy and also I am following that policy when it comes to the regimental association website. While it may be an association of people with experience in the field, they don't cite exterior sources and their verifiability is shaky. This issue was pretty much resolved before and I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. SantiLak (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Designation claimed by the kyiv post[edit]

Hi SantiLak,

Do you have any better source than a newspaper? If the kyiv post announced that designation, they must have learned it from an official source, like a government decree or a law, right? Would you have any link to this decree or law? That would be a much better source. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't but I can try and find a government site with that sources although it may be a little difficult because I can't read ukrainian. Just to be clear I wasn't the user that added that link, I just didn't think that the Kyiv post article was unreliable considering it was just announcing the designation. SantiLak (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nexmo Page Creation[edit]

Hi SantiLak,

Can you please justify why the page Nexmo was deleted and what I can do to contest it/get a Nexmo page on wikipedia. This page is a brief overview of a San Francisco company that many businesses all around the world use as their provider to send text messages to their customers. This is not meant to be for promotional but for informational and educational purposes. I also noticed that many of our competitors are already on Wikipedia also, such as Twilio [1], Clickatell [2], and Plivo [3]. If there are specific changes to the content you think I should make then I will do that or if someone could please write a Wikipedia page on the topic then that would work too. Please let me know. Thank you! Ldteixei (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The page was promotional and an admin deleted it for that reason and the issue mainly is that Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to be promoted. SantiLak (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ANi Discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. realized you were not notified, the discussion and issue is taking a turn for a larger scale issue. Thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. - SantiLak (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

International reaction[edit]

Why did you make the choice to remove the sourced information about international reaction at [Iranian-led intervention in Iraq]? DocumentError (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The UK meeting did not imply support for an Iranian intervention so it did not belong there, the venezuelan source came from press tv which is not a RS, opinion columnists really have no place in a reactions section because as we can see in other articles the reactions sections are for government sources reactions to actions, not opinion writers. The other section on Iran was not an erroneous deletion because it didn't belong in the article. It was about Iranian reaction to the US intervention. That has nothing to do with the Iranian intervention but is just their reaction to a different intervention. SantiLak (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'm willing to meet you half-way on that, if you would like to? Could we accept deletion of the international reaction and the opinion columnists and then take some time to discuss the Iran/Hezbollah reaction on the Talk page? Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to hear your arguments for that part on the page talk page. SantiLak (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi - do you object if I undo your deletion of the Hezbollah flag icon? This is sourced to multiple RS but I may have not included those in the infobox. I will include on reinsertion. DocumentError (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I do object, the vox source provided did not mention hezbollah at all. The Iraqi hezbollah branch does belong and the hezbollah commander may have died in Iraq but that does not support the implication that they are intervening. SantiLak (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd just ask you please slow down the speed of your deletions of material and give me a chance to better source these. I have sufficient RS for all, but I had to do the article on my own from scratch and so any omissions were unintentional and fixable. Is that acceptable? DocumentError (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If you could do me a favor in the spirit of discussion and let me look at the sources here before you make changes, I would appreciate it. SantiLak (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I just posted them to the discussion on the Talk page in the spirit of discussion and consensus-building. DocumentError (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


I've just gone to the Help Chat and asked for an immediate admin intervention (one way or the other) on the ANI question. It would be helpful if you could go there and second my request. Very little will be accomplished by bringing the entire gallery to ANI once again and it would be beneficial to get this resolved immediately. I'd like to ask your permission to put a "Freeze" box on the ANI discussion to prevent further comments until an Admin can review it as, based on the history of this, I predict it will get exceptionally nasty without it. DocumentError (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am currently away from my computer. SantiLak (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine, can I get you to agree that I can "freeze" the discussion as a preventative de-escalation step? DocumentError (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
nevermind; looks like the ship has sailed DocumentError (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I still feel that on the ANI question is kind of unnecessary when it comes to your issues with my RfC. - SantiLak (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


I am providing everyone who commented in the open page RfC and the preceding closed on without respect to their !vote. [[1]] I very much hope you are able to put aside our editorial differences and faithfully and honestly comment on this highly aberrant and unusual behavior that seems to have nothing to do with our core content dispute but more with editor stability. I know you would not like it if I started unilaterally moving the page or changing key names and, despite our differences and my admittedly uncompromising position on just about everything related to this topic, I hope you are aware I have not and will not do that and that I (even if grudgingly) have followed consensus and work through established processes. The current situation with respect to one editor who is displaying symptoms of high edit instability, however, is not producing a workable edit environment and is likely to further inflame an already less-than-congenial Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you are concerned but considering that I have cooperated with both of you in the past on different things I feel I should stay neutral in this issue. SantiLak (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

US airstrikes in Syria[edit]

Please stop removing my properly cited content. It clearly says in the cite what is added in the wiki article. You have either not fully read the cite or you are deliberately ignoring the relevant cited info. either way i have put in the edit summary the clear quote that supports my edit. To say that it is not saying that is clearly wrong, and to ignore the reactions of one of the most important factions in this whole affair is even worse. (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The way that you write it does not meet up with what they are criticizing the US for. They are criticizing the US for not striking Assad and not necessarily criticizing the airstrikes in general. The article does not support that claim. I read it multiple times and it does not support the assertions that you make in your additions. - SantiLak (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have changed it so that the statement supports the information in the article. - SantiLak (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

seagate police[edit]

Please Stop making changes to my edit's ...... seagate is NOT a police department in New York City. Look at this site as you can see they are trying to become a police department !!!!!!!! they are a public safety force empowered by a seagate association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have gone down this road time and time again and you have cause the pages to be protected because of this, they are technically a police department and are listed as such on wikipedia. As such the link from the Law enforcement in New York City page to the Sea Gate Police Department page should not be changed as you did. Please stop editing the page. - SantiLak (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
how can seagate PD be as you say (technically) a police department when they are asking the New York state assembly to Create the Sea Gate water and sewer authority and the Sea gate police department. Are you kidding me with your facts ... why are seagate officers PEACE OFFICER and NOT POLICE officers ??????????
The article is title Sea Gate Police Department, removing the link to that wikipedia article is disruptive editing. Please stop. - SantiLak (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
disruptive editing ??????? those are the facts. If you don't agree with it take it up with seagate they are the ones that created the wiki page with this misinformation.
Yes disruptive editing by removing the internal link to another article. That qualifies. - SantiLak (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
why are you disputing you facts ?????????????
Why are you disruptively editing? - SantiLak (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
because wikipedia encourage it, maybe you forgot that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all that is not a justification and second it is not true, wikipedia does not encourage disruptive editing, it encourages constructive editing. Users such as yourself encourage disruptive editing. - SantiLak (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
My edits are constructive ..... I'm correcting inaccuracy information with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how they are constructive because all you are doing is removing a link to another wikipedia article under the pretense that you are right that the article being linked to should be named something else. You have been blocked before using other IP's and have caused these page's to be locked because of it. Please stop your disruptive editing. - SantiLak (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
sorry but i will continue to make edits to any wiki page that has inaccurate or worry information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering your editing patterns, continuing will lead to you being blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. - SantiLak (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

must i remind you what wiki is .... Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour ........ so i will continue to make any edit that know is worry or inaccurate .............. and i don't care for your threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a threat it is a fact that you will be blocked and the pages will be locked. There are thousands of changes per hour and thousands of reversion of un-constructive edits like yours. - SantiLak (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Habit Burger Grill[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you as an employee of The Habit Burger Grill. There is incorrect information on our page that I attempted to edit and you reverted. The information saying we have grown through franchising is inaccurate, we currently have zero franchise locations open. We have plans to open franchise locations as mentioned in the article cited [3]; however, all of our current and coming soon locations are company owned. Can you please either correct this or allow me to correct it? Thank you. (HabitManager (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

According to reliable sources that have been cited, The Habit Burger grill has grown after change in owners that decided to start franchising along with rapid expansion. If you read the header for the locations section that you have changed several times you may have been misunderstood because it says "The Habit Burger Grill currently has 109 restaurants established or near completion" with near completion being a key part of that as restaurants under construction are included in that count. Although you may not know wikipedia does not allow Original research. That means even if you are an employee of the Habit, you need to provide reliable sources for the change. If you can find reliable sources to support that there are no current franchising locations then post them here and I'll take a look at them. - SantiLak (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This article clearly states the the first two franchise agreements have been signed in Seattle and Nevada where we currently have no open or coming soon locations. This means we currently have no franchise locations at this time. Thank you.[4] [[[User:HabitManager|HabitManager]] (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)]

That article is cited in the Habit Article and I'm pretty sure that you didn't read it very well. No where does it explicitly state that those are the only franchising locations. It does say "two new franchise deals" which does not mean that these are the first. Again in the article it says "The Habit Burger Grill currently has 109 restaurants established or near completion" with near completion being a key part of that as restaurants under construction are included in that count. Those franchised locations in Seattle and Nevada are not included in that count but the franchised locations that were under construction were included. I have changed the article to make it clear that franchising is responsible for very recent expansion but the count will not change. - SantiLak (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting a premature archive of a section[edit]

With regards to this edit. You need to take two more actions. You need to remove from the archive the text that you have copied back--otherwise there will be two different versions archived. The second thing you need to do, if you want it to remain there for 30 days, is add a comment with a signaure to the section stating that you reverted an archive, otherwise the bot may well archive it again. Rather than commenting here I could have performed those two steps, but I think it better that you understand what needs doing. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the info. I didn't know what exactly to do but I knew that the RfC was important and had not finished. Next time I'll follow those steps. - SantiLak (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
So you still need to do those two additional steps. -- PBS (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I just did a few a minute or so ago. - SantiLak (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)