User talk:Santamoly

Adams on Mahomet & Koran

Thanks for your note. I've replied on the article talk page. Please see Talk:John Quincy Adams#Adams on Mahomet & Koran.   Will Beback  talk  07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Suzuki vs CU

I have requested outside comments on this dispute, as it will otherwise go on for ever. I don't know how you found the video, any other possible sources out there?  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Exsite Webware (software)

Restored, it looks like there was a version mismatch - I didn't see a keepon tag on the page -- Tawker (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's hangon - see Template:Hang on, no worries, welcome to Wiki! -- Tawker (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Gina Jordan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

it would help to have some specific documentation for the facts of her life, but it seemed OK to me. If you have more references, please add them. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Ball

FYI

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball
• Arbitration ruling for discretionary sanctions regarding climate change articles

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

O mio babbino caro

Hi. Yes, Evancho is very notable, but hundreds of notable singers have sung and recorded this song. They need not be listed in the article about the song unless, say, they released a single of it that went to #1. Note that the article does specifically mention that crossover singers have sung the song. The number is certainly one of Evancho's signature numbers, but come back to me in 10 years, and we'll re-evaluate if Evancho is one of the all-time most famous singers of the number like Maria Callas, who isn't even mentioned in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance on Elvis related articles

I have checked some archived conversations on the article, Elvis Presley,[1] concerning User:Onefortyone, with his same "Elvis died - on toilet" theories. Can you consider having opinion on these two articles, where he continued to add this? They are Graceland and Toilet-related injuries and deaths, discussions at Talk:Graceland#Issues and Talk:Toilet-related injuries and deaths#Issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelse (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lingua franca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin. 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) 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding reverting deletion of "sourced edits" on Pokémon Go

I'm not sure what "rules" you are referring to, but I would like to point you to WP:IINFO: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The burden is on the editor who wants to add something to the article to establish consensus for the addition. You can be bold but if it's reverted/removed, you need to discuss it on the talk page before reinstating it, per WP:BRD. – nyuszika7h (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Pokémon Go shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please cease adding this content back to the article. Multiple editors have removed it due to prior talk page discussions, and editors have pointed out the talk page and WP:BRD to you. Discuss it on the talk page, stop reverting it back into the article. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nissan Micra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Automatic. 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) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exsite Webware (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GeneralizationsAreBad was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Exsite Webware and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GAB^gab 00:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Santamoly, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GABgab 00:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me on my talk page. While I understand that the criteria for sourcing are somewhat looser, I would still appreciate seeing more than just the sourceforge cite, which did not seem like adequate sourcing to me. Adding some other credible, in-depth sources would be helpful if another reviewer comes along. Best, GAB^gab 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Pokémon Go are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Santamoly,

You need to understand that we need several, in-depth reliable sources to be incorporated into the article. Oliver Stone is a film director. He would be a reliable source when it comes to film techniques. A good reliable source would be a newspaper or a news website, like The Times, The Wall Street Journal or CNN. Technology websites like CNET or The Verge would be a good one too. Otherwise there are reliable video game sources, like Game Informer, Gamasutra or Kotaku. If you can't find these, please stop starting new discussions about a CIA involvement in Pokémon Go. I don't think any editor is "nervous" about it, just skeptic about the whole thing. It is detrimental to Wikipedia, and it only takes up our time. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Talk Page is about improving the article, but deletion of this topic actually detracts from the quality of the article since the CIA question is widely discussed in current news, by notable sources and famous people. When the topic is buttoned up as some are trying to do, it stifles discussion of a most interesting facet of the game. It's better to leave this content in the main article without trying to shut it down since the topic has legs. Santamoly (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place, shall we? I try to keep an eye out on talk pages I've responded at. Otherwise you can use {{ping}}, like {{ping|Soetermans}} and I will get a notification.

It is not "widely discussed in current news, by notable sources and famous people". If it was, how come you can't find the sources to back it up? Did you read WP:RS? Please see WP:WEIGHT too. A insignificant minority view of a subject isn't automatically part of its article. Talk pages are intended to discuss possible changed and improvements to the article, but no other editor is agreeing with you, so the topic doesn't have legs either. So unless you can find reliable sources, please do not start another pointless discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents, probably best to drop the CIA thing for the time being. Even if it were true, it would take time for something like that to get broad coverage in big name sources. If/when that happens the discussion can always be revisited. But right now I think you're hurting your case a little bit by reopening the discussion over and over. There is WP:NODEADLINE, but it's good that you're keeping an eye out for sources. The New York sex offender thing may be a good catch. We'll see what everyone else thinks. TimothyJosephWood 10:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Final Warning

I, and other uninvolved editors, closed the discussions, because there is a broad consensus that your assertion is not backed by reliable, third party sources. Everything I've seen you give either has either been from sources that don't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable sources, or was from reliable sources that did not directly assert the exact idea you were trying to add to the article. As such, the info fails WP:FRINGE. Unless there's a new development or source that literally and directly states the exact information you want to include, there is nothing more to discuss.

If your next comment at the article talk page doesn't involve a reliable source that directly asserts your stance, the discussion will be closed, and if you open up another discussion, you will be blocked from editing for disruptive editing. Chose your approach wisely, as this is your last chance. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you keep posing questions about this at various (misguidedly wrong) venues. To clarify for you, yes, its perfectly acceptable to archive/close discussions that have developed a strong consensus with the opposing side failing to provide any valid (according to Wikipedia-policy) arguments to advance the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. It describes what we're going through right now. There is a consensus against you. You keep proposing the same info and sources that do not mesh with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. 4 separate editors have closed the discussion on the same grounds. It's as my final warning said - unless you have a new Wikipedia-standard reliable source, there's nothing left to discuss. (And Dispute Resolution will not take on a case that has a landslide consensus already against, and even if they did, your arguments, as they currently are, will not be convincing to experienced editors who understand the website.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so, fair warning - you were given one last chance to comment to advance your argument further with better sources, and failed to do so. There's a strong consensus against your stance, and you don't have any new developments, so you need to drop it for now until anything changes. If you start up another discussion on the same grounds, it will be considered distuptive editing and you will receive a short block from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's OK. There's enough publicity here now on the Talk Page, and in the archives, to counter your efforts to stifle the topic. I do regret that you've succeeded in removing the topic from the article, which lessens the quality of the article, but awareness is in the air now. American social media and gaming are now beginning a particularly creepy phase and the topic will soon be able to stand on its own legs. Next up: Department of Homeland Security is asking arrivals to turn over their social media accounts for inspection. Cheers, Santamoly (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, you can rationalize and make all the excuses you want, but the fact of the matter is, your approach was irreconcilable with Wikipedia policy, and there was a very strong consensus against you. The fundamental issue is that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy, and when things don't make sense, you seem to turn to accusations about other's motives to help your rationalize what's going on rather than reflecting on your own understanding of the website. This doesn't do you any favors either - your continued baseless accusations only served to irritate others. Look, I'm familiar with many of the editors who oppose your stance. They have no history of being "pro-censorship" or "pro-CIA" in their editing. (Quite the opposite, I'm not sure how familiar you are with video game culture, but there's recently quite the section of the fanbase that has become rather intolerant of censorship in video games.) They just don't like original research or poorly sourced fringe theories put into articles.

You seem to share a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia - we don't make the news, we document it. So, if you're not finding a lot of sources from mainstream journalism or scholarly journals, then it would probably be given undue weight to be added to the article. Pokemon Go receives coverage for a multitude of things, but being involved by the CIA is not one of them. If you want to "enlighten" the world about the CIA and Pokemon Go, that's fine, go for it. But Wikipedia, is not your medium for enlightening the masses or right the great wrongs of the world. If that's your intent, you need a new medium. Luckily, you live in an age where there's no shortage of ways to share such ideas with the world, so you've got alternative outlets should you chose.

But no more pushing obscure blogs and then accusing others of bad faith. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 said above: "there was a very strong consensus against you." No, Sergei, there wasn't a "strong consensus", there was only three immature gamers who were nervous about the news of proliferating spyware embedded in games. You keep bringing up the "obscure blogs" phrase to refer to any media sources that you don't like. Regardless, I'm aware of how frightened Wikipedians can defend a topic from contrarian news by deleting edits, archiving comments, and disparaging sources using the "obscure blogs" label. We experienced types are aware of how it's done and are able to bring forward alternative news and you are unable to do anything about it. We can't be banned for trying to improve the article, even if you don't like it or it makes you nervous. It's time for you to grow up and realize that people look to Wikipedia for both sides of a discussion, and that Wikipedians don't always behave as you would like. Santamoly (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See, that response pretty much perfectly exemplifies your problem here. Fundamentally, you don't understand how Wikipedia defines the sources that are usable, and then you muddle the discussions down with these silly misrepresentations, personal attacks, and accusations. There were more than 3 editors who disagreed with you. Not a single person, directly or indirectly, expressed any sort of "nervousness" or "uneasiness" with discussing things related to the CIA. They were not "frightened" or "immature", they directly and correctly cited objective policies and guidelines you were not adhering to. Ironically, they were the ones who kept the discussions on-topic, where it was you that kept making baseless accusations about their personal feelings on the matter. You continually, even now, keep taking the low-road on things, misdirecting the real issues at hand.

You are correct in that, no, people cannot be blocked for "improving Wikipedia", but they most certainly can be blocked for personal attacks, continually assuming bad faith through baseless accusations, and disruptive editing, and you're on your last warning on all three. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For what's worth, I consider myself to be a mature gamer. I urge you to keep your opinions on other editors to yourself, and try to discuss content instead. Thanks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see that some of you are alarmed at the prospect of discussing new ideas, but I'd like to remind you that the Talk Page is for improving the article, not for trying to prove that others are mentally deficient. It may give your egos a boost to engage in that kind of behavior, but it's not appropriate. You don't have to respond to my comments or suggestions, nor do you have to defend anything. It's only some kind of juvenile urge that prompts some here to "circle the wagons" - and it's not necessary. You can simply read my suggestions, and move on to something more pertinent to your leanings, without getting all bogged down in immature, defensive, self-righteous posturing. In other words: grow up and learn to improve the Wikipedia experience instead of trying to show the world how clever you are. Santamoly (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

1. You need to stop trying to lecture people about "what the talk page is for". They know what it's for. It's not "discuss everything, all the time, as much as you want". Discussions run their course. A discussion was held. The discussion's contents was evaluated, and a very clear consensus was determined. Your stance was rejected. Then its time to move on to something else. Continuing to push the same idea over and over again while not acknowledging there wasn't any support is considered disruptive. Anybody would be reprimanded in the same manner if they nominated the same article for deletion 5 times in a row, in the same week, right after it was clearly decided to keep the article, for example. You can't just bludgeon your way through discussions.
2. Pretty sure I just gave you a final warning about personal attacks/baseless accusations, and I'm pretty sure your last response was yet another baseless accusations of calling your opposers "immature" and "self-righteous". (And a bunch of other indirection allusions to be "juvenile", etc.) Again, I've read through the conversations in question - no one said anything out of line to you, they just plainly notified you that they did not agree with your stance for policy-based reasons. You, on the other hand, cannot seems to stop attacking other editors - something they've complained about since the discussions were on-going. You've been warned plenty of times, but refuse to stop. Therefore, you are now blocked for 1 week.

• When you return from your block, I hope be ready to finally drop all of this, and stop insulting other editors along the way. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! Haha! Too funny! I didn't expect that a "mature" Wikipedia contributor would resort to blocking another editor on a Talk Page, of all places, but I guess that's to be expected in gaming topics where some editors seem to have really sensitive (delicate?) feelings! BTW, I know you can't resist getting in the last dig, but try to remember that this is my Talk Page, so please try to be civil. Santamoly (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's typically where people get blocks over personal attacks/unconstructive comments - talk page discussions. Talk pages, even your own, don't give you immunity over insulting others. Yet again, no one is fooled by your lecturing on things you clearly don't understand, so lets wrap it up. Unless you have anything constructive left to say, your talk page access is going to be revoked too, because right now you're just wasting everyone's time. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to ask: do you understand what the word "civil" actually means? Because you haven't shown a single sign of civil behavior, yet you urge others to act civil on your talk page. You've called me and others "immature gamers" and repeatedly claimed we're all concerned about the CIA. You've been given plenty of chances to provide new sources, when all you've done is accused us of trying to stop a discussion. Now you're saying "Oh, my goodness! Haha! Too funny!", which isn't a civil response. You cannot say "but I guess that's to be expected in gaming topics where some editors seem to have really sensitive (delicate?) feelings!" either, that again is unnecessarily crossing the line. @Sergecross73:, it's up to you if Santamoly already deserves a block extension. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Soetermans, I have never accused you personally of anything, either directly or by name, yet you continue to arrive on my Talk Page to insult me directly. You are now especially active, after someone succeeded in blocking me, accusing me of all kinds of nastiness. This is definitely unprofessional and unethical, especially when you can see that my ability to respond has been limited. That is the meaning of "unethical": you can see that I am down, and like some kind of American street hooligan you continue to arrive on my page to attack me personally with guns blazing. Please stop this incredibly beastly behavior. After the block is lifted, I will be bring fresh main-stream evidence of the CIA's involvement in the Pokemon GO game, and you can continue your defensive efforts at that time. But please, in the interim, stop your personal insults and personal attacks. Santamoly (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

After all the warnings, and a block, about personal attacks and baseless accusations, you go with "American street hooligan"? Are you kidding me. It seems you're only still here to antagonize. Talk page access revoked, block expanded to 2 weeks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How, how did I insult you? And if you did find something offensive, I certainly did not mean to be. So could you please stop playing the victim? Case in point: you can still look up sources and list them right here! You don't have to wait until your edit block is lifted. Go ahead, find all the sources you need. Since I was involved in the Pokémon Go talk page, I only assumed you meant me with "three immature gamers". So who were you referring to? Now you're comparing me with a "American street hooligan". Not sure what that is though, I'm a Dutchman. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: With talk page access revoked, he will have to wait to be unblocked before he can present sources. (Block evading will only lengthen the block.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Barging in by Sinebot

   I'm sorry to arrive here and find you apparently blocked, but hope the underlying dispute can be resolved and you'll be back. My guess is that you can still reply to me on either of our talk pages. (Yours would [obviously?] be smoother, but that convention is not one of the many things i'm compulsive about; i'll check in, decreasingly often, for a while even if you haven't pinged me.)
   I often look at old-but-unarchived talk pages of article pgs, adding missing sigs and annotating multi-edit/single-time-stamp contribs (feel welcome to ask why), and ran across the expression of yours that i adapted for this talk-secn's title. If i didn't fuddle my estimate, you had abt 350 or 400 edits under your belt when you used the expr'n in yr edit summary re Spanish Inquisition (hmm, do we cover the MPython sketch, and link to it from the Dab page?), so it's not obvious you'd had by then a fair chance to figure it out, nor obvious that you'll've figured it out by now, so i'll ask: do you understand why the multi-save/single-sig method is problematic, and that the sandbox solution has numerous advantages?
   Let's discuss, at your convenience. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 06:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what any of this (e.g. "multi-save/single-sig method") is about. Nor how the Inquisition entered the conversation. But I do enjoy re-runs of Monty Python on YouTube. So if you can explain, I'd be thankful Santamoly (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

   Well, then in a sense all is as it shd be, since "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Is the recurring Python punchline, with details available via the SI Dab page. But...
   Yrs ago you edited the tk pg for the medieval SI with several saves but either replacing the timestamp with each edit, or waiting 'til you were done before signing; you replaced at least one User:Signbot sig with a later sig, muddying or rather camoflaging the history of your talk-page edits for that article. And barging was yr term for Signbot doing its job. You'll be reminded if you go look.
--Jerzy•t 12:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Was that within the last 10 years? I have no idea how to find such a long-ago item without digging through 1000+ entries line-by-line. My memory doesn't quite go back that far! Even if I found the item, I wouldn't know what to do with it with respect to the concerns expressed. Is it important so many years later? Santamoly (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Santamoly. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Santamoly. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Exsite Webware

Hello, Santamoly. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Exsite Webware".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Your addition to Draft:Exsite Webware has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Exsite Webware concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Exsite Webware, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Exsite Webware

Hello, Santamoly. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Exsite Webware".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Santamoly. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As your editing emphasis at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is closely related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and the related, documented attempts at manipulation of Wikipedia using falsified sources, it's best that you be aware of these arbitration restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)