User talk:Fabyan17

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder, Don't worry I just forgot to write my details. It's my own work. I've already written the details. Thank you and God bless us!

ישו יברך אותנו[1]

12:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC

You need at least 250 mainspace (article) edits to join WP:WP/AfC. Please come back then! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vicente S. Santos, Jr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long Service Medal. 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) 08:55, 19 February 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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page mo sa Commons

Kumusta, puwede mo bang tingnan ang talk page mo sa Wikimedia Commons? Salamat! Pokéfan95 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest on Vicente S. Santos, Jr.

Hi Fabyan17. Based upon some of the personal nature of the some of the photos and personal details you've been adding to Vicente S. Santos, Jr., it appears that you might have a conflict of interest when it comes to editing that particular article. Please note that even the appearance of a conflict of interest can possibly lead to problems with other editors when editing. So, if you are connected to Santos either personally or professionally, I strongly suggested you look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. COI editing is not expressley prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something that is highly discouraged. There are certain limitations placed upon COI editors because they can find it difficult to maintain a neutral point of view and often include information that they may personally know to be true, but which is not supported by a reliable source for verification purposes. If you do have a COI, then you should declare such a thing on your userpage so that other editors are aware of it. Please also note that we as Wikipedia editors do not own any of the articles we create or edit, and that unsourced article content may be removed by any editor and it is the responsibility of the editor wanting to add the information to provide a reliable source in support per WP:BURDEN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are claiming that you are the son of Vincent S. Santos Jr. in this post you made at c:File:VicenteSantos2.jpg, then it is quite clear that you have a conflict-of-interest with respect to the subject of the article. Since that is the case, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines since there are certain limitations placed upon COI editors by the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask at the Teahouse or discuss them at Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two other editors, besides myself, have been trying to improve the article so that it is more in line with Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines. I posted about the article at WT:MILHIST#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and asked for editors to take a look at the article and assess it. Anotherclown and Keith-264 have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time and have much experience editing military related articles and the changes they made were good faith attempts to improve the quality of the article. Wikipedia requires that all articles be written in a neutral point of view which can be really hard to do when you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Nobody is trying to add anything inappropriate about Col. Santos, but this is not a personal webiste about him; it's a Wikipedia article which means it must comply with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. If you feel some of the changes which were made are not improvements, please discuss you reasons why on the article's talk page and explain how they are mistakes by citing the relevant policy/guideline. Mistakes are expected to be made by editors because Wikipedia article's are not intended to be perfect and these can be corrected; however, simply reverting numerous edits/improvements others have made without leaving any explanation at all like you did here is not going to be seen viewed by other editors. The article is written about your father, but it is not owned by him or anyone connected to him. No single editor has any sort of final editorial control over what is added or removed from the article. We work collobratively on Wikipedia by establishing consensuses that are based upon policies and guidelines, so I strongly suggest you partipate in the discussions already taking place on the article's talk page. If you continue to revert without explanation, then eventually you will find your actions being discussed at WP:COIN and then possibly even WP:ANI. Please consider this post to be a level 1 warning for disruptive editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I suggest you discuss your suggestions for the article on the article's talk page instead of simply reverting. The best thing to do in this case is to try and establish a consensus for the inclusion of such content per WP:STATUSQUO. Continuing to revert without even attempting to discuss is likely going to be seen as edit warring. The fact that you are Santos' son means that you do have a conflict-of-interest when it comes to the article as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends. Please consider this post a warning for edit warring and understand that continuing your current course of action is going to lead to a discussion being started at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authorized Biography

I have already posted my comment in the talkpage of the article, as I have relayed:

There is no COI issues involved, since the information of the biography are from sources and references that have been properly cited. People who are part of the family or heirs of the subject person, in fact, give credence and validate the biography of the subject individual. Please read the "authorized biography" part in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography

ישו יברך אותנו[2]

02:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the authorized biography you're talking about? And how can you say that there is no COI issues involved? Again, you have a COI, and you are requested not only by Marchjuly, but four editors (including me) to stop editing the article where you have a COI. Your edits are controversial, first they don't conform with WP:NPOV, second, your sources are not reliable sources (Wordpress is not a reliable source). So stop edit warring and let others improve the article. Consider this as your final warning. Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, pls. refer to the talkpage in the article, so that we will have one discussion, as it will be confusing to post back-and-forth from my talk page to the talkpage of Article: Vicente Santos Jr. Thanks

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

If you continue to edit war on Vicente S. Santos, Jr you will be blocked from editing. It's preferable that you don't edit the article directly at all, as a number of editors have told you above, but instead propose changes on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Fabyan17 - also please ensure you read and understand our policy regarding reverting changes to articles. In particular the policy at WP:3RR which states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 24-hour rule is not what is in question here, Anotherclown. Fabyan17, you were already edit warring, and I warned you would be blocked if you continued to edit war. You have continued, here, by yet again reinserting an overlong quote. This is the last straw, and I have blocked you for 31 hours. When you return, please pay some attention to what experienced editors tell you. You are a prey to misconceptions, most notably in treating the article Biography as some kind of policy. People have tried to explain the difference between Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the one hand, and articles on the other, but you seem not to take it on board, whether by choice or inability I don't know. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Vicente S. Santos, Jr. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fabyan17. 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]