User talk:Terrorist96

Image tagging for Image:Donuts.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Donuts.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Donuts.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Donuts.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic).
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic).
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic), a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 07:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic)

Hello Terrorist96. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Motion Comic)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username Discussion

Hello, Terrorist96. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to archived RFCN discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liberland is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

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 the Balkans, 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 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 The alleged micronation of Liberland is located on territory being disputed between Croatia and Serbia. It is clearly in the Balkans so it falls under WP:ARBMAC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied

[1] I'm not going to unblock your account. I agree with the administrator which has blocked you - that username was unacceptable. --Bonč (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonč:, okay that's fine. I never used the Croatian Wikipedia before so I don't really care. I'm more confused as to why you care about my username, notwithstanding its declaration of being acceptable. No other language has blocked me, only Croatia, and this account is over 8 years old. And FYI, you should know that as an admin, but it's customary to conduct a RfC about the username in question (like this) before taking unilateral action to block it indefinitely. You know, like a fair trial, not iron fisted dictatorship. But whatever makes you feel better. :) Terrorist96 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of revert

How is [2] a valid revert? I linked a term that I had restored to show that it is the term that is normally used. That's clearly not vandalism. If we don't need the link then just remove it, but don't revert it without an explanation. Meters (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use the wikilinks for the summary table for all other 49 states. This is for consistency. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, just put that in the edit summary when making the change. Reverting a good faith edit such as that is the same as calling it vandalism, and is a misuse of the revert button. Don't so that or you may lose your revert privilege. Meters (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Nbastater24 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terrorist96 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback requested re sorting Cannabis in US template

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Can_we_file_states_only_by_.2Ahighest.2A_category_in_Template:Cannabis_in_the_United_States.3F. 06:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk • contribs)

Best way to cover DC cannabis topic? Your input requested

Please see here: Talk:Initiative_71#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington.2C_D._C..2C_split_off.2C_or_what.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improving chart at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction

This article is the most-viewed page for cannabis issues in the US (~1,500 views/day). I think we can streamline it to make it less clunky and more intuitive for readers, especially now that we have state-specific articles for all US states. Your feedback is invited: Talk:Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#Changes_to_chart.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Terrorist96. 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)[reply]

December 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Stand-your-ground law, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - Mr X 19:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:OR policy

WP:OR does not allow an editor to read some bare statistics and then draw a conclusion like "This does not prove that "stand your ground" led to a lower violent crime rate, however, it also does not show "stand your ground" to cause an increase in violent crime rate either.". Please read the policy, ask questions, and use the article talk page. Please do not add your own analysis, no matter how certain you are that it is true.- Mr X 19:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

LOL, the name!!! This did not violate WP:Username?

Rev. John, ULC (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rev. John, ULC: Nope. Can't say they didn't try to get me for it though lol. See here.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Rev. John, ULC (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~But that links to a different discussion? Some guy called 'LOLWTFOMFG' or something ;)~~O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Green-Star-Map-05-Feb-14.png

Thanks for uploading File:Green-Star-Map-05-Feb-14.png, which you've attributed to http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/resolutions/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiCompositeNumber: What are you talking about? Did you check the link in the permission section? On there it states that everything on the site is public domain free to use. I confirmed with the person who runs that website too. So I'm not sure where this is coming from.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tag, I didn't see the note on the About page of the website. I'll remove the deletion tag and make a note on the image page. Thanks for telling me! --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I skipped right over the permissions link. Really sorry about that. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

=) Terrorist96 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding use of the "minor edit" tag

Just a gentle reminder that the "minor edit" tag is not supposed to be used unless "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content." Anything that changes content is not a minor edit.

Reminder is made because of some edits made to the Constitutional carry page. (The rearrangement of the New Hampshire section was fine, but content was also changed in the Missouri section on the last edit, making it non-minor.)

Mdak06 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gun law state maps

Greetings, Terrorist96. You're right, that Alaska map has less consistency with the other maps, but I still think it's way preferable for the article, because of how it shows where Alaska is in relation to the continental United States. And the same for the Hawaii map, let's put that one back too please. I also preferred the previous map for Rhode Island, though of the three I have the least strong opinion about that one. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Hawaii one, but I think the Rhode Island one better identifies RI on the map than the previous one (zoomed in outline vs just a circle), so I left that one.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff in content discussions

WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions, the but reasoning applies well in discussions about content, too. I suggest that your arguments would carry more weight of reason if they cited our content guidelines and policies. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack 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 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.
You broke the 1RR here: 1, 2. Focus on the talk page, please. VQuakr (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert more than one time. Don't know what you're talking about....Terrorist96 (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided diffs. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are unrelated and don't constitute an "edit war".Terrorist96 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policy linked in the warning above. A "revert" is an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions. Whether they are related or not is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, though that I also just reviewed what I wrote here and self-reverted my own 1RR violation on the article. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao! You're alright. :) Terrorist96 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'll just reiterate what VQuakr said above. That was a 1RR violation, and you should try to avoid making another. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic, this is not a 1R violation, but this kind of unexplained revert is just as disruptive, since your drive-by revert places a good-faith editor in an impossible spot given the 1R restrictions on the article. I note also that you couldn't be bothered to explain on the talk page. User:BU Rob13, I don't know how you feel about this kind of stuff, but I do not look kindly on it. Please note the possibility of sanction. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite as harsh as Drmies on this topic. (If we frown upon reverts that make someone else break restrictions if they want to revert again, that functionally places the second editor at a 0RR restriction. Does that mean the first editor shouldn't revert to avoid placing the second editor at their 0RR restriction? Meh.) I am concerned by the lack of discussion, though. Consider this a friendly nudge toward discussing each of your reverts on the relevant article's talk page. If a pattern of undiscussed reverts develops, the friendly nudge is likely to become a slightly-less-friendly restriction placed via discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rob, it's that complete lack of discussion that makes this a disruptive edit. A good-faith revert, with an explanation, that's different. This one, for all I know it's drive-by vandalism, or specifically intended to get someone in trouble, baiting them to revert.Drmies (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting an unexplained removal of content. I didn't think I needed an explanation for reverting vandalism. Plus, I used TW's Vandalism revert, which doesn't allow for explaining the revert, since it's undoing vandalism, which should be obvious. The editor that removed the content failed to discuss why they wanted to remove it, so I restored the article to the previous version. Funny how me restoring the article counts as vandalism. And note that he's in trouble for his edits here, one of which includes the deletion that he made, which I undid.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not "in trouble". A report has been made. If anything, it appears the editor who filed it is likely to get blow-back from what I can see. A long-term editor's removal of content is not "vandalism". If you're confused about the removal, ask the editor. Discuss it. Reverting doesn't achieve much. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's been around since 2006. I've been around since 2007. We're both "long-term editors". Next time I'll just revert with a note saying "Reverted unexplained removal of content." Would that be sufficient? I thought it was obvious. Sorry.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale behind the revert? If it's "I'm going to assume any unexplained removal of content by an experienced long-term editor is vandalism", then no, that is not sufficient. The reason we revert unexplained removal of content by new editors or IP editors is because it's very likely to be vandalism. That is not the case when dealing with experienced editors. If you object to the content removed on its merits, say so. If you don't, a blanket revert is not helpful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is that it's an unexplained and without consensus removal of content from the article. That content wasn't added recently that he decided to remove for no consensus for its inclusion. It had been there this whole time. Further note that he violated 1RR three minutes later. And he removed this section which was based on mediation.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ~~Volunteer Marek did violate 1RR yesterday~~ (1, 2). I'm surprised this is not featured prominently at the AN report about him. El_C 21:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You're special, you! Thank you so much comrade. RaRaRasputin (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR vio (kinda, sorta, whatever)

Hey. This and this are technically a 1RR violation. The second revert is so obviously beneficial that I can't find it in myself to chide you much. Consider this more of heads-up just to be a bit more careful. Pinging Volunteer Marek to self-revert the tag here would have been better. I'm sure he would have done so since the issue he pointed out was resolved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't count that as a revert, they're fine on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REAL ID map

Thanks, I didn't realize it was being updated since first posted. For any such map constantly subject to change, wouldn't it be useful to add "as of [date]" to the caption at the same time the map is changed, so readers wouldn't wonder about it? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! The problem with that is that anytime it is updated the person updating would have to remember to update the caption on every page that the map is embedded in (in this case it's just one page). The better solution is for the user to check the revision history; why duplicate an already present solution? However, if a map is clearly out-of-date and not actively being updated, then adding such a notice would be warranted, in my opinion. But since this map is being maintained, it's reasonable to assume it is up-to-date.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SWEDHR report cited by Syrian ambassador in UNSC

Hi, Terrorist96. I saw your important contributions in the Khan Sheikhoun page. The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) claims in the new published "Statement on deletion attempts in Wikipedia articles on SWEDHR and its representatives"[3], that the Syrian ambassador mentioned a SWEDHR report (that analyzed a couple of White Helmets propaganda videos), in the UNSC session of April 12, which debated the alleged attack. Has this been mentioned in the discussion? Brgds, Inkerifi (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, this has not been discussed on the talk page. Feel free to mention it and start a dialogue. Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I like you.

Jetro (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see...

Please see the "List of Orange Is the New Black episodes (talk page)" Thank you 82.44.112.108 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Terrorist96. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Black supremacy not racism?

What went on at Black supremacy and Template:Racism topics? Administrator Malik Shabazz (!) reverted you when you added the template to the article and any link to it from that template because "no sources" (!) So "White supremacy" is racism (no sources needed there) but "Black supremacy" is not. I'm trying to understand if this is just the hilarious yet tiresome "there is no such thing as Black racism/Blacks can not be racists" I've heard a million times (maybe you have too) in yet another guise or if there is something else? Just trying to understand how things work around here. Thanks. Cheers, Basemetal 00:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the user claims there's no reliable source for saying Black supremacy is racism, even though it is by its very definition. See here for more.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're absolutely right of course. Basically the resident Black supremacists/racists and/or their leftist acolytes have managed to censor any mention of Black racism on WP. I hadn't realized to what level WP had descended. Ironically "Black racism" redirects to "Black supermacy". Basemetal 02:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right. The definition of the term says so. 2+2=4 is a revolutionary statement nowadays... Zezen (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Terrorist96. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Botrequests.
Message added 15:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map removal.

Hello, I recently added a map on the page Zoophilia and the law in the United States but you reverted it with no explanation. Can you please tell me why you decided to revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akartoshi (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akartoshi: I did include a reason. But I'll restate it here: 1) it violates WP:CRYSTAL, 2) it converted an existing SVG image file to a PNG. If you wish to update the map, update the existing one and don't convert it to a PNG and upload a separate file. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, As you can tell, I'm pretty new at wikipedia, I didn't know how to update an existing file, thus I just decided to make a new one. I will make an SVG now.

Also, I do have sources, that were already included in the page. I didn't just blindly make those changes. Akartoshi (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]