User talk:SantiLak

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

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 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)

September 2014[edit]

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 once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I now see that I was edit warring and I won't revert their edits to the talk page again. I didn't revert them in bad faith I was just responding to something that they had posted on my talk page before they had been blocked. It won't happen again. SantiLak (talk) 19:39, 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)

Proposed deletion tags[edit]

Santi, proposed deletion tags ({{prod}}) may be deleted by any editor. After that, it can not be prodded again, but must go to discussion (unless it can be speedy deleted). See WP:DEPROD. This is in regards to Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I only deleted it because I thought the editor wanted to hide the nomination. I wasn't trying to support the deletion but in that instant I forgot that the nomination can still be seen. Momentary lapse of judgement. Won't happen again. SantiLak (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem - just thought you might not know. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:38, 3 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)


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)

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)

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)


You also used WP:ROLLBACK when you reverted this non-vandalism edit. GB fan 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Next time I'll just use twinkle Rollback which allows me to add an explanation for an edit. SantiLak (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, because I am finding more places where you have done this. Twinkle would be a better option. GB fan 22:04, 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)

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)

Instant revert?[edit]

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)