User talk:Locksmith1865

Your submission at AfC Arcadia Police Department was accepted

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.

• 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!

hewhoamareismyself 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Truth About Guns was accepted

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.

• 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!

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

U.S. territory gun law articles

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

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

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)

Anti-vandalism

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!

Thanks for creating TTAG, SantiLak!

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

Thanks!

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

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.

• 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!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

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

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

One Child Policy heading change

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

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.58.106.250.244 (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.58.106.250.244 (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.58.106.250.244 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing Dispute over State Bar

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 All of the quotations removed were sourced criticisms of a public entity, including quotations from a published court decision.--User:2.177.71.18712:01, 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. 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

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations --User:2.177.71.18712:01, 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)

SantiLak's Talk page history shows that instead of responding to articles, he removes the points people raise. His talk page is filled with censorship of points people raise for discussion.

21:23, 31 August 2014‎ 82.208.100.59 (talk)‎ . . (25,931 bytes) (+4,889)‎ . . (Undid revision 623618939 by SantiLak (talk) This user continues to vandalize certain article. Please keep the warning on this page.) 

09:33, 31 August 2014‎ 2.177.71.187 (talk)‎ . . (16,329 bytes) (+522)‎ . . (→‎Anti-vandalism & Edit Warring Six Times in Less than 24 Hours:  new section) (undo)

16:11, 31 August 2014‎ 2.177.71.187 (talk)‎ . . (25,931 bytes) (+425)‎ . . (User removed points presented for discussion from his Talk Page. How can you discuss the article when User censors the page provided to discuss the points?)

--User:2.177.71.18712:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User page

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)

Battalions of territorial defense in Ukraine

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)

September 2014

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)