This is an archive of past discussions about User:Locksmith1865. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
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.
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)
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, Number5712:41, 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)
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.
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)
I definitely would but I don't know how I could do it. Any suggestions because I've been editing for a while but I have never dealt with an anonymous user who acts like the ones have in the last few days. SantiLak (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You should go to WP:RPP, and in the section "Current requests for increase in protection level", ask for indefinite semi-protection of your user page because of defamatory edits by anonymous editors. --Marianian(talk)07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea but I think I will wait until the one IP comes back to see if they stop. I don't want to act preemptively and get denied protection because nothing is happening to my page as much as I would prefer my page to be protected. Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. SantiLak (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't panic. I got semi-protection for my page after just one incident and I am getting a bit worried about your page being messed up (it just happened again). --Marianian(talk)20:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It still seems like a good idea but whenever I go to WP:RPP. a lot of pages get denied because they only have like two malicious edits over the course of a couple of days. SantiLak (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that possibility is much less likely since I had to revert another harassment edit on your user page by IP 64.134.169.199. There is a good case for indefinite semi-protection of your user page and you are advised to take advantage of this feature to reduce such vandalism. --Marianian(talk)03:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, SantiLak, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle12:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Priority Rapmasters series
Thank you for the positive feedback on my articles for the 4th and 5th volumes of Priority's Rapmasters series!
Thanks. Out of curiosity, when you review a new article (which appears to me to be a rather new practice), what are you reviewing it for? Is it just to see that it's not incoherent nonsense vandalism, or is it to make sure that it has two or three secondary sources for notability, etc.? Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
When I review articles I really look at the editor and their edit count. If the editor, like you has thousands of edits then I know that they are not only reliable but their article is most likely good. If I see a user with 25 edits I usually check to see it isn't some copied and pasted nonsense. I also check for sources and look for articles that might not necessarily need deletion but definitely need improvement and I tag them. SantiLak (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Carla Quevedo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I'm not good at English but want to know why you removed what I wrote. You said it didn't appear constructive. But it appeared constructive for me. I want to know your opinion in detail about this.--122.29.192.52 (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
SantiLak has already been reported by several users for habitually vandalizing articles. An Admin blocked him for several days from reverting edits, and now he is back at it. Don't waste your time with this guy; take it to an Admin. It's getting absurd. 2.177.170.75 (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You are the only user who has reported me and that same Admin told you to discuss the issues and that the edits weren't vandalism. If you want you can check my user block log, I've never been blocked. SantiLak (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
What an Admin said to SantiLak: "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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.177.170.75 (talk)
Exactly and I did resolve it by discussing it with Callanecc and deciding to wait for the discussion until Arontrice's blocking period had expired. Can you please stop harassing me on my talk page and instead work to resolve the issues on the state bar page. SantiLak (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't take that long of a look to realize what it is, a conspiracy theory. I did look at it later on and it still looked like a conspiracy theory, and again now I looked back and it still looks like a conspiracy theory. I would also suggest sticking with one IP address in order to make it more simple to be contacted. SantiLak (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You have to prove that when you add material by citing verifiable sources. This is not a place where information is true until proven false. It is a place where you must prove the information is true to add it onto wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel like you are confused by what I just said, you need to provided verifiable and reliable sources to back up your claims and provide relevance for them to be in the articles. The sources you provided weren't. Again this is not a place where information is true until proven false. It is a place where you must prove the information is true to add it onto wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That reference didn't link to a family tree, it linked to the wikipedia article Jap. It also didn't come from a verifiable source. You also failed to prove it's relevance in the article. SantiLak (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is important because it does not link to a verifiable source which is how people can know that the information you add is accurate. SantiLak (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I did write the source three times and you removed it without seeing if it is verifiable by going to the library. But the source is recorded. And you are wise enough to go to the library and read the bibliography. Too wise to decide it is not verifiable only by visiting the Wikipedia article Jap, I believe. I need not post, I think.--114.164.11.240 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is just the same source again then, no, you shouldn't add it again because it is not reliable or verifiable and yes I did check the source. SantiLak (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear SantiLak, i wrote the texts abou Savinja and Šalek Valley on the wikitravel as well, so I have all the rights on the text. I wonder if it is not permited to post my own texts to Wikipedia? Is there a problem if the same articles are on two different websites? Thanks for answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketinka1 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh god, I really don't understand what exactly I should do to post on (talk) page.
I might have done wrong in previous attempt. Copy pasting my previous message here.
Yes I removed the speedy deletion tag twice , because I didn't know about it and wikipedia warning page asked me to make necessary changes to it. I made changes and I admit I was a noob in doing so. But I also said " I will not remove the tag if added again" the moment I read that I shouldn't remove that tag. Please understand what I am trying to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socioblend (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What is it you found objectionable. Please refer to the links on the page. The page mentions, it is managed and "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2014)"
That does't justify adding unsourced material that smears a the subject of the article. The tags in no way justify what is borderline vandalism and not to mention the fact that you are also ignoring NPOV guidelines. SantiLak (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Forge 54
Hello SantiLak,
Please provide justification for Forge 54 deletion. Myself and thousands of members of the Southern California community would agree that a Forge 54 wiki encyclopedia article page would serve the community. Please let me know what you believe to be "ambiguous" so that I can make edits and improvements to the page. Thank you for your help.
You have simply replicated the same page that was deleted earlier today. It is very promotional. Wikipedia is not made to help promote organizations or people. It is an encyclopedia. SantiLak (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Promotional information was removed from the article posted earlier today. Information was properly sited. Please illustrate some differences between Forge 54 and other less known non-profits that do have wikipedia pages. -jhohener — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhohener (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The article looks almost identical and it is still promotional. Also it is your duty to illustrate why it isn't promotional not mine to re-justify why I nominated it for deletion. SantiLak (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with SantiLak. It's not promotional. It's best to have an Admin look at this guy's Talk History. His behavior is getting abusive here. 2.177.170.75 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The article was deleted by an Admin, I'm not abusing any behavior, you are just going to all my talk page posts and adding responses. Please stop harassing me. SantiLak (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
How rude
Seriously? My sillypeppymacspeed page was necessary and I don't fucking appreciate you flagging it.
Meet me face to face in Detroit and we'll settle this out. Come on homeboy, come fite me. I'm a real gangster.
i bet ur trap cat
I am a human being your article is not only insignificant but promotional and really a waste of time. It is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. SantiLak (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because it has been written and authorized by the musician himself, Rob Burger, so all facts are correct. He also controls the content on his website, robburgermusic.com, from which the information comes from and is the copyright holder for everything written on the Wikipedia page. He has submitted his consent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so I'm not sure why it is still being deleted.Cpg819 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When you revert an addition in less than a minute, it's obvious you didn't bother to even look at it. What exactly was your reason for doing so? I understand this is election season, and you have every right to detest this or any other candidate. That does not give you the right to delete information others may find useful. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You removed a link to relevant information at the attorney general's website and I felt that it was an unnecessary removal and yes I did look at it and it seemed to me that in an external links section, a link to a page with direct information on a politician and not a dmoz link would be more relevant. SantiLak (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia Guidelines are clear that we do not provide a linkmap of any sites. The AG site is listed. It is not necessary to also include a link to the biography page within it. It remains impossible for me to believe you reviewed all the links within the DMOZ link in less than a minute. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine, remove the bio site but the dmoz link is not necessary as well and I don't read at 1 character per minute. It doesn't take me that long to look at a change usually when it is that small. I know what a dmoz link for a politician looks like and thats why I changed it. Some of those links are relevant but they should not be included as a dmoz link but with a direct external link. SantiLak (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, read the Guidelines. When there are "too many" external links, a link to a webguide or directory is encouraged instead. All links were removed from every US politician site in January, as "too many". That's why we now have links to DMOZ. This is not the time or place for you to refight that. Again, please do not let your personal feelings about the politician interfere with your Wikipedia editing. I just added information on the debate between the two Texas candidates for governor, including the link to the complete video. I have yet to find information on a debate already present when I go to add one, and that goes for races in all 50 states over many election cycles. You want to delete that too? How about the entire election article? All the cadidate articles? Would that make you happy? Would it? This is not a horse race, this is an election. An encyclopedia is a reference work, and that doesn't mean just providing a list of polling results. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but when did I indicate that I cared what their politics were? I don't care whether democrat, republican, libertarian, green, socialist, or whatever I am a wikipedian at heart and I don't let my own opinions interfere with edits. I don't want to delete those things and the external links sections should be shortened to include only relevant links like to the attorney general's website or their page on ballotpedia but a dmoz link is unnecessary when what really should happen is the removal of unnecessary links and only adding relevant ones like ballotpedia or a state website. I am well aware that it is a references work but just adding a dmoz link isn't what needs to be done. SantiLak (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The point that you failed to understand was that you need to provide citations or at least a reference in an edit summary to support removal or else you can't remove thing from a list like that. SantiLak (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lindsey Graham
Why did you delete my edit to Lindsey Graham's page? It was cited and everything. It is simply common knowledge that this man is a queer in Washington DC! 71.188.65.244 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
They are allegations made by a blogger, not facts. Just because you add a citation does not make the source reliable, if you go anywhere on the internet you can find a site to support your claims for almost anything. SantiLak (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Designation claimed by the kyiv post
Hi SantiLak,
Do you have any better source than a newspaper? If the kyiv post announced that designation, they must have learned it from an official source, like a government decree or a law, right? Would you have any link to this decree or law? That would be a much better source. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't but I can try and find a government site with that sources although it may be a little difficult because I can't read ukrainian. Just to be clear I wasn't the user that added that link, I just didn't think that the Kyiv post article was unreliable considering it was just announcing the designation. SantiLak (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nexmo Page Creation
Hi SantiLak,
Can you please justify why the page Nexmo was deleted and what I can do to contest it/get a Nexmo page on wikipedia. This page is a brief overview of a San Francisco company that many businesses all around the world use as their provider to send text messages to their customers. This is not meant to be for promotional but for informational and educational purposes. I also noticed that many of our competitors are already on Wikipedia also, such as Twilio [1], Clickatell [2], and Plivo [3]. If there are specific changes to the content you think I should make then I will do that or if someone could please write a Wikipedia page on the topic then that would work too. Please let me know. Thank you! Ldteixei (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The page was promotional and an admin deleted it for that reason and the issue mainly is that Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to be promoted. SantiLak (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Why did you make the choice to remove the sourced information about international reaction at [Iranian-led intervention in Iraq]? DocumentError (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The UK meeting did not imply support for an Iranian intervention so it did not belong there, the venezuelan source came from press tv which is not a RS, opinion columnists really have no place in a reactions section because as we can see in other articles the reactions sections are for government sources reactions to actions, not opinion writers. The other section on Iran was not an erroneous deletion because it didn't belong in the article. It was about Iranian reaction to the US intervention. That has nothing to do with the Iranian intervention but is just their reaction to a different intervention. SantiLak (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'm willing to meet you half-way on that, if you would like to? Could we accept deletion of the international reaction and the opinion columnists and then take some time to discuss the Iran/Hezbollah reaction on the Talk page? Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi - do you object if I undo your deletion of the Hezbollah flag icon? This is sourced to multiple RS but I may have not included those in the infobox. I will include on reinsertion. DocumentError (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I do object, the vox source provided did not mention hezbollah at all. The Iraqi hezbollah branch does belong and the hezbollah commander may have died in Iraq but that does not support the implication that they are intervening. SantiLak (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd just ask you please slow down the speed of your deletions of material and give me a chance to better source these. I have sufficient RS for all, but I had to do the article on my own from scratch and so any omissions were unintentional and fixable. Is that acceptable? DocumentError (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If you could do me a favor in the spirit of discussion and let me look at the sources here before you make changes, I would appreciate it. SantiLak (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just gone to the Help Chat and asked for an immediate admin intervention (one way or the other) on the ANI question. It would be helpful if you could go there and second my request. Very little will be accomplished by bringing the entire gallery to ANI once again and it would be beneficial to get this resolved immediately. I'd like to ask your permission to put a "Freeze" box on the ANI discussion to prevent further comments until an Admin can review it as, based on the history of this, I predict it will get exceptionally nasty without it. DocumentError (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I am providing everyone who commented in the open page RfC and the preceding closed on without respect to their !vote. [[1]] I very much hope you are able to put aside our editorial differences and faithfully and honestly comment on this highly aberrant and unusual behavior that seems to have nothing to do with our core content dispute but more with editor stability. I know you would not like it if I started unilaterally moving the page or changing key names and, despite our differences and my admittedly uncompromising position on just about everything related to this topic, I hope you are aware I have not and will not do that and that I (even if grudgingly) have followed consensus and work through established processes. The current situation with respect to one editor who is displaying symptoms of high edit instability, however, is not producing a workable edit environment and is likely to further inflame an already less-than-congenial Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand why you are concerned but considering that I have cooperated with both of you in the past on different things I feel I should stay neutral in this issue. SantiLak(talk)00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
US airstrikes in Syria
Please stop removing my properly cited content. It clearly says in the cite what is added in the wiki article. You have either not fully read the cite or you are deliberately ignoring the relevant cited info. either way i have put in the edit summary the clear quote that supports my edit. To say that it is not saying that is clearly wrong, and to ignore the reactions of one of the most important factions in this whole affair is even worse.58.111.194.70 (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The way that you write it does not meet up with what they are criticizing the US for. They are criticizing the US for not striking Assad and not necessarily criticizing the airstrikes in general. The article does not support that claim. I read it multiple times and it does not support the assertions that you make in your additions. - SantiLak(talk)19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Please Stop making changes to my edit's ...... seagate is NOT a police department in New York City. Look at this site http://assembly.state.ny.us/ as you can see they are trying to become a police department !!!!!!!! they are a public safety force empowered by a seagate association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.197.42 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
We have gone down this road time and time again and you have cause the pages to be protected because of this, they are technically a police department and are listed as such on wikipedia. As such the link from the Law enforcement in New York City page to the Sea Gate Police Department page should not be changed as you did. Please stop editing the page. - SantiLak(talk)03:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
how can seagate PD be as you say (technically) a police department when they are asking the New York state assembly to Create the Sea Gate water and sewer authority and the Sea gate police department. Are you kidding me with your facts ... why are seagate officers PEACE OFFICER and NOT POLICE officers ??????????
The article is title Sea Gate Police Department, removing the link to that wikipedia article is disruptive editing. Please stop. - SantiLak(talk)04:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
disruptive editing ??????? those are the facts. If you don't agree with it take it up with seagate they are the ones that created the wiki page with this misinformation.
First of all that is not a justification and second it is not true, wikipedia does not encourage disruptive editing, it encourages constructive editing. Users such as yourself encourage disruptive editing. - SantiLak(talk)04:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how they are constructive because all you are doing is removing a link to another wikipedia article under the pretense that you are right that the article being linked to should be named something else. You have been blocked before using other IP's and have caused these page's to be locked because of it. Please stop your disruptive editing. - SantiLak(talk)05:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering your editing patterns, continuing will lead to you being blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. - SantiLak(talk)05:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
must i remind you what wiki is .... Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour ........ so i will continue to make any edit that know is worry or inaccurate .............. and i don't care for your threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.204.98 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not a threat it is a fact that you will be blocked and the pages will be locked. There are thousands of changes per hour and thousands of reversion of un-constructive edits like yours. - SantiLak(talk)07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The Habit Burger Grill
Hello,
I am contacting you as an employee of The Habit Burger Grill. There is incorrect information on our page that I attempted to edit and you reverted. The information saying we have grown through franchising is inaccurate, we currently have zero franchise locations open. We have plans to open franchise locations as mentioned in the article cited [3]; however, all of our current and coming soon locations are company owned. Can you please either correct this or allow me to correct it? Thank you.
(HabitManager (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC))
According to reliable sources that have been cited, The Habit Burger grill has grown after change in owners that decided to start franchising along with rapid expansion. If you read the header for the locations section that you have changed several times you may have been misunderstood because it says "The Habit Burger Grill currently has 109 restaurants established or near completion" with near completion being a key part of that as restaurants under construction are included in that count. Although you may not know wikipedia does not allow Original research. That means even if you are an employee of the Habit, you need to provide reliable sources for the change. If you can find reliable sources to support that there are no current franchising locations then post them here and I'll take a look at them. - SantiLak(talk)01:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This article clearly states the the first two franchise agreements have been signed in Seattle and Nevada where we currently have no open or coming soon locations. This means we currently have no franchise locations at this time. Thank you.[4]
[[[User:HabitManager|HabitManager]] (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)]
That article is cited in the Habit Article and I'm pretty sure that you didn't read it very well. No where does it explicitly state that those are the only franchising locations. It does say "two new franchise deals" which does not mean that these are the first. Again in the article it says "The Habit Burger Grill currently has 109 restaurants established or near completion" with near completion being a key part of that as restaurants under construction are included in that count. Those franchised locations in Seattle and Nevada are not included in that count but the franchised locations that were under construction were included. I have changed the article to make it clear that franchising is responsible for very recent expansion but the count will not change. - SantiLak(talk)19:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
With regards to this edit. You need to take two more actions. You need to remove from the archive the text that you have copied back--otherwise there will be two different versions archived. The second thing you need to do, if you want it to remain there for 30 days, is add a comment with a signaure to the section stating that you reverted an archive, otherwise the bot may well archive it again. Rather than commenting here I could have performed those two steps, but I think it better that you understand what needs doing. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the info. I didn't know what exactly to do but I knew that the RfC was important and had not finished. Next time I'll follow those steps. - SantiLak(talk)21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi SantiLak
The page DiabeTV should not be eliminated because it refers to a company whose efforts are towards helping the people worldwide suffering with Diabetes mellitus or Prediabetes, and also giving tips to those who do not suffer the decease, but live with or know someone that does. Currently, doing a quick check of their facebook profiles (three languages), made me realize they have more than a quarter million followers from Argentina to US and India, and their articles receive good feedback from the Diabetes community.
Returning to the point of keeping the webpage, i asked myself a couple questions before submitting the content and creating the wiki page "Is it a company whose core focus involves helping people around the world? Yes it is... Is diabetes a 3 day decease easily eliminated? No it is not... Does this company's mission and vision have an honest and non-profitable essence? Yes it looks like. The point is that, maybe with some revisions to the article, we can work in a way for people to discover and know more about this company and the works it does, because talking from a personal point of view (i'm diabetic) since i found this page i have been enjoying their articles and newsletters and my wife cooks their recipes and uses their advice. They work to inform and educate in easy terms, there is not much medical jargon and for people without diabetes its easier to read and relate with.
Finally we should look at some facts:
1-The company website does not contain any type of advertisement or promotional material. Is truly a helping page.
2- "As many as three million Americans may have T1D. Diabetes currently affects more than 371 million people worldwide and is expected to affect 552 million by 2030. In the U.S., a new case of diabetes is diagnosed every 30 seconds; more than 1.9 million people are diagnosed each year" [1] So the more help there is for diabetics, the better.
Thanks
Tavob (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Tabob
^Jump up ^ From JDRF -An organization dedicated to funding diabetics research
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Farewell
Hi, I hope you did well on your SAT!!!
I know I've been writing tons of stuff you are probably already tired of reading. And I hope our discussion hasn't distracted you from your SAT. But since I feel we were starting to get along nicely near the end, I hope you can take the time to read this.
Actually, I was quite surprised when I heard that you were taking the SAT, because I'd thought you were much older than I am. This is btw a complement I give to those who are younger than I am and who have impressed me with their maturity, but it is a little bit different here. First of all, I must praise you for acting calmly and respectfully throughout our discussion, despite our disagreement. These are really valuable qualities. However, there are also things I want to point out.
Let me open up by revealing my personal opinion on the issue we were discussing. I am NOT, as you may have suspected, Pakistani. I don't know any Pakistani people and I know little about their country or religion. In fact, I don't think I am any more related to Pakistan than anybody else here. Nor am I related to Yemen or Somalia. But my issue with the drone program is this: I do research in a related field, I know the great potential of the technologies we have, and I don't want my work to be used against humanity. You may not feel it yet, but what we do can have a real impact on the world. We may be humble and quiet (although I feel you are going to go on and accomplish something great in the future, and thus the following is even more relevant), just like, for example, the quants. I know a few quants personally, and they are all really nice, humble, and even a little bit nerdy. I bet few people knew what they did for a living a few years ago. But they are now portrayed as big evil greedy reckless figures because people now realize that what they did have directly or indirectly caused the recession. But they were just doing what they were doing, that were no less natural and commonplace to them than driving a bus is to a bus driver or handling telephone calls and paperwork is to a receptionist. See, the small things we do can have a real impact on the world, and because of this, we have to access the close and distant consequences of out actions, and we must act with conscience. Even if people don't know or don't understand or don't even care what we are doing, we must think about how it's going to affect the world, and make decisions with conscience.
Also, remember, hatred can never be killed. Killing only makes it grow bigger. If you remember The Patriot, try to imagine replacing the British army with today's US army, and replacing Benjamin Martin with say, a farmer somewhere in Afghanistan or middle east, whose family members get killed and whose house destroyed, who then turns against his enemy and kills mercilessly. Everything would fit perfectly. Benjamin Martin still has his sons. But when you have lost everything, you then have nothing more to lose. You can then break all moral codes and be as nasty as you can. It doesn't take a sophisticated mind to understand "an eye for an eye", but it does take a great deal, a great deal of thinking and empathy to break the vicious cycle of retaliation and figure out a way to share the world with others in peace, despite all the wrongs we have done to each other in the past. I am, myself, still struggling with this. It is, after all, the last and ultimate stage of Kohlberg's Moral Stages, and most people don't reach this stage in their whole life. But I am trying, and I hope you can too.
Just to clarify, I despise and condemn terrorism just as everyone else does. But humans infected with terrorism are just like humans infected with Ebola. They are dangerous and contagious, but they are the victims too. So healing, is always preferable to killing.
And don't say "everything is just fine the way they are". It makes you sound old, and in a not very positive way. We are too young to say this. We have all the future in front of us and all the potential to bring changes to the world, which is, you must recognize, far from perfect. If even we give up and say "everything is just fine the way they are", the world will lose all its hope. It will be hopeless.
I know, I have been preaching to you the whole time, but since this is a personal message in your personal space, I believe it's not governed by WP:SOAP. Just hope you don't mind my "intrusion".
And it's not going to matter to the article anyway, since I don't plan to touch it any more. Let those who want to control it control it. Congratulations! Your "in the US not by the US" has withstood all my attacks and survived to the end!! well, just kidding. But remember, wining this game is a small victory. What you want is to win ALL the games, all the games from now on. And that can't happen unless every one in the world wins together.
I noticed your changes on the List of wars involving the United States. The page is meant to list wars, theatres, campaigns, and military conflicts. Which you erased. Those pages qualify as American military operations.
As for your point of view on the 1986 United States bombing of Libya, killing Gaddafi was our main intention. Please dont change the outcomes without sources or just because you feel like it was a "Victory". Im simply writing what the article says. And the article states it was a Libyan Victory.
If you still consider these "not wars", then that means that the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, and the expeditions have to be removed as well. Making almost 40% of the page erased.
The goal of the bombings was to retaliate for discotheque bombing by bombing libyan targets, not solely kill Gaddafi, that was a secondary goal. and the outcome is "*Bombing targets damaged, Muammar Gaddafi survived, Failed Libyan scud missile response" the article does not say defeat. The article's scope is "This is a list of wars involving the United States of America during and since the American Revolutionary War, detailing all constituent military theatres and campaigns." That does not mean all military operations such as the time in the gulf of sidra that a couple of Libyan migs attacked a combat air patrol aka second gulf of sidra incident. That falls under Timeline of United States military operations just like the first incident which also was a combat air patrol. Those are not wars just incidents. And no because of what I did a lot of the page would not have to be deleted, just those parts that aren't really campaigns or theatres or wars. Small skirmishes don't count under this list but instead under Timeline of United States military operations. - SantiLak(talk)00:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
First off, thanks for the edit on the Intervention in Maghreb. I agree. A training operation doesn't count as a war. However, on to the Libyan conflicts, they were on the article way before I contributed to the page. But they were removed for unknown reasons. As for the operation, I cant change it to Victory, because the official article says it was a Libyan victory. However, I can discuss this with the owner of that article. For now, please keep it as it is.
Two things, one, I don't see anywhere where it says that it was a Libyan victory, what I quoted above was the outcome listed and that doesn't seem to be a victory. Also when it was previously listed, the bombing of Libya was listed as a victory not as a defeat. I believe that they were removed for the same reasons that I cited being that they were small skirmishes and don't qualify to be in the article but instead belong in Timeline of United States military operations. Second, on a more of policy point, there is no such thing as ownership of an article in wikipedia as described in WP:Ownership, there might be a frequent editor or the person who started the article but you can't own an article in any certain terms or act like it. On a final note, please remember to sign all of your talk page posts by clicking the Sign your posts on talk pages button above the edit summary and also, when adding new sections to a talk page just click new section because that puts the new section at the bottom where it belongs as talk page procedure. - SantiLak(talk)00:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: Gun politics in the United States
Citations are needed for that as well as POV language was inserted. Along with those points, it is unnecessary for that more detailed part to be in the lead section.
Per WP:LEAD, citations aren't needed in the lead, especially for material summarized from the body. What POV language was inserted? I believe that "detail" is necessary, as there is a false dilemma constructed in the lead, making it seem like Americans are split on gun control and gun rights when in fact polls show solid majorities supporting two distinct issues related to background checks and assault-style weapons. So, it's not only necessary, it's of vital importance. Your revert makes me think that POV pushers have taken over this topic arena in an attempt to develop a false narrative that deviates from the sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Citations really are needed when it comes to that information despite WP:LEAD as you can see in the rest of the lead section. Also the issue should be addressed in the article but the detail is unnecessary in the lead but a more appropriate thing as I see it to add would be maybe the ending of that sentence not be the effects of gun control on crime and public safety but instead the effects of gun control on crime and public safety but there are still areas of common ground between the two groups. Also when citing information like that you need citations. If you were just saying something like "Gun politics in the United States is controversial part of American politics" then you wouldn't need citations but when you add information on polls and stuff you do need citations. I may have misspoken when I wrote that POV language was inserted, I probably just misread the section and I apologize for that. - SantiLak(talk)05:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I know that Viriditas is too smart of a WP user to believe this IP who has harassed me over and over before with slander. Pay no attention to them and I do apologize for not responding in a while, it completely slipped my mind but I will soon. - SantiLak(talk)08:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello Locksmith1865. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lets discuss this here. I removed the bolding because it might have been emphasizing one result over the other, and therefore "contributing" to the edit wars, but not being part of it. No bold results would be more neutral.
I was hoping that no bolding would stop the edit-warring. Do you really want the bolding that much? Or can we agree to get rid of it? Having a list of the outcomes with no bolding might be more effective.
I think that we need to stick with bolding for the listed outcome such as Victory or Defeat or Ceasefire. I can agree to list it as 1975 but the top article listed outcome should be bolded like I said. Also I understand that the vietnam war did include the laotian and cambodian wars and we really don't need to mark it as the second indochina war because the common name is the vietnam war and those wars are listed as part of that war. - SantiLak(talk)09:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but there seems to be a misunderstanding here about that, which started pretty recently. Also, I think the common name only applies to the article's title, not neccessarily content.
And I dont actually care about the bolding, I just thought that it might have kinda decreased the edit wars, but it doesn't really matter. However, I think that no bolding is the better choice. Kirothereaper (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I honestly think the bolding should go now, because it's starting again. Let's just see if it works first. And then it would be easier to begin the process to stick with the listed outcomes on the articles. Which is what the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and Philippines does for the most. I'd say give it a try first, and see of it resolves. Kirothereaper (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
To be clear I didn't respond because I couldn't, I have school and I can't be on WP all the time. I think that common name should be applied when listing the name of the war. I don't se how removing bolding would decrease edit wars, the bolding wasn't causing the problem, it was a content dispute over the outcome. I understand that other countries war lists put it like that but that doesn't mean that we need to remove it from the US wars list, in fact it could mean that we should bold those outcomes in those wars like an editor did to this page. - SantiLak(talk)22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant the way it's presented compared to the other articles I mentioned. It makes it harder to stick with the actual articles. Like I said, I don't really care, but it was worth a try. Kirothereaper (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And that's fine although I don't agree. Like I said, I don't really care, I just wanted to give it a try. Do you want to continue this? Kirothereaper (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Uber
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please consider self-reverting your latest edit at Uber. Although reverting socks, trolls, and vandals is probably an exception, you probably don't want to be in technical violation of WP:3RR. There's likely going to be some administrative involvement, and the advocates for disparaging Uber on the page are likely to play games including accusing the regular editors, if this is indeed an organized campaign or else a single person's obsession. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You might want to make that statement on the talk page to forestall any trouble. I'm going to ask for semi-protection at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Economy of Asia edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We are a group of students working to improve the Economy of Asia article. You made some edits to the content we added back in October. We have made several significant changes since then and would appreciate any feedback you have on them. Thank you!
Mlc299 cornell (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Los Angeles Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Bradley. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have reverted your edits. The lead summarize the content from the body. If you find the text in the lead is long, do re-edit so that the information is available. But, if you want to remove it from lead, state your reasons in the talk and we can discuss.Prodigyhk (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Like Soulparadox said, if we included summaries of all the issues, then the lead would be an encyclopedia itself. India has now been referenced in the lead by another user. - SantiLak(talk)06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You need reliable sources, those are not reliable sources. Also you can't insert your own POV into the article which is what you did. - SantiLak(talk)09:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Whats "the media" is that some sort of general statement? Also thats not how wikipedia works, you need reliable sources to back up what you put in articles. Also please sign your posts on the talk page- SantiLak(talk)09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC).
DEAR SANTILAK THE SOURCE WAS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST THAT'S A CREDIBLE SOURCE. THANK YOU-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcepeci (talk • contribs)
That is one source from the washington post that is an opinion column, not a news article. The other sources are not reliable and there is still POV in your additions, fix that before re-adding. - SantiLak(talk)20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
DID YOU READ THE PETITION. EVERYTHING IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE. PLEASE DO NOT CENSOR THE TRUTH. WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY THAT ALLOWS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. YOU CAN SEE THE PETITION AND INVESTIGATE IT ALL FOR YOUR SELF. I AM REPORTING YOU FOR VANDILISM
First of all I have not vandalized or censored anything so lets get that out of the way now because its ridiculous to say it. Also freedom of speech does not mean that on Wikipedia you can add whatever you can add whatever you want even if it violates policy. Second, deleting other users comments is a big no no, you can't do that. - SantiLak(talk)22:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The section of this article is Official Reactions and Pro-Public Campaigns.
You removed what was probably the largest pro-public campaign for Pollard. If you want to edit it, please do so. However, it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseph davido (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Itamar attack was a terrorist murder. Why did you change it? People are killed in car accidents. This was break into someones home in the middle of the night. The family was sleeping. The baby according to some news reports was decapitated.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I'm not sure why you're not allowing me to list the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as an autonomous republic of the Ukraine. Crimea was not a republic of the USSR, it was part of the Ukrainian SSR. It did not have autonomy under the Ukrainian SSR until 1991. It then declared that autonomy while the USSR was collapsing, but before Ukraine declared independence. It was thus autonomous when Ukraine declared independence. While there was a dispute between the central government and the Crimean one over the level of autonomy at first, by 1997 an agreement had been signed clarifying this position. Thus while the exact date of Crimea's autonomy is disputed, it was definitely in the 1990s. For more information, see Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and Republics of the Soviet Union. Thanks.SaltySeas (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it was either a part of the USSR or part of Ukraine and although with some autonomy maybe for some weeks or months, it was never a sovereign state. - SantiLak(talk)23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to list it as a sovereign state though. I'm listing it as an autonomous area of Ukraine. Every other entry's autonomous areas are all listed, why not Ukraine's Crimea? SaltySeas (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Well my apologies, when I looked at the diff I must have thought you were trying to add it as a sovereign state, just a simple mistake. Feel free to re-add it it was all just a big misunderstanding I just thought you were trying to list it as a sovereign state. - SantiLak(talk)23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A barnstar for you!
The Half Barnstar
Thank you for teaching me something new! I was obviously misinformed about the rules of link piping. I thought redirects were to always be avoided, but I guess not! WikiWinters (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Seeking Adoption
Dear SantiLak,
Would you please adopt me? I want to learn copy-editing. :)
I do not to see how your revert would constitute an improvement. Simply clicking on the revert button without making any effort to actually contribute anything yourself is counterproductive and offensive. --Webmgr (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for not making an edit summary but the addition was very poorly formatted, not cited properly, and seemed to be just a quote from a news article. I have no idea how it could be offensive and its not counterproductive, all you have to do is re-add it properly. - SantiLak(talk)22:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
State Bar of California
Hello! It's nice that you're a college student and not an employee at the California State Bar. Are you planning on becoming one? If so, I'd like to ask that you be a professional while you are there, many Californians depend on competent assistance from the Bar. That appears to be lacking at times. Did you know that there are foreigners working there now? Perhaps "foreigners" isn't the right term, but non-native Americans may be.
That is nice, but in order to have a fair and impartial review by that entity, it helps to have one who is familiar with national and state difficulties, difficulties that a non-native might not only be unfamiliar with, but entirely oblivious of. Protocols of the law, of course, but the nuances are to be known, also, or a grave error may be made.
If you are a sock of 2.17's many accounts then please stay away from my talk page, I have dealt with enough of them over the last few months. - SantiLak(talk)21:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No idea what "sock" means, but I wonder how many items you attribute to this person that you've "dealt" with? If you wanted to enumerate them, I might be able to tell you if they're mine or not. But, honestly, your notation of being a "high school student" rather than a State Bar employee is meaningless. Warning someone off your talk page isn't the mark of one who has interest in the law, rather it's only casting meaningless threats into the wind and hoping they'll land on someone deserving of them. In America, that's not how it's done. You are from America?--2602:306:3600:95B0:70D0:923A:6133:56C0 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
On a note so you are aware, Wikipedia is a worldwide project, not just an American project. Also a sock is a user who is the same person as an earlier user but just uses a different account or IP. My notation is not meaningless because it is true and that user with their pattern of harassment, anti-semitism, ridiculous accusations, and personal attacks on other users, it was important to make clear that I was not what they were accusing me of. I only got involved with the article when I saw that user's change on Hatnote. - SantiLak(talk)20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast made a new request to change back the name of the article within a day after an administrator renamed it based on the established consensus. As far as I know per WP policy you need to wait a month after a discussion ends before starting a new one, otherwise its viewed as disruptive. And he additionally wants to merge the 2015 article you created into the 2001 one. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I have associated myself with RCLC's views, as I believe that the 2001-onwards phase of the conflict is better described as an American-led war rather than strictly a NATO involvement, which actually started only formally in August 2003. I would prefer that we consider the situation when the U.S. special forces (which details I've added a bit to the new article) leave, possibly in December this year. My views are set out in detail on the talk page of the 01-14 phase article. I hope this explains at least why I'm opposing the article you did the job of creating, and it is, as always, something that can be settled through discussion. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06(talk)21:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to make it clear that I only created this article because their was consensus on the talk page for it. I saw that and decided that if it was going to happen I should at least try and make it reasonably good for how small it would be. In the earlier argument, I argued what is still my position, which is that even if we rename it, it is still the same war, just the Afghans are leading now, there wasn't some massive change in the war that made it separate and ISAF wouldn't constitute such a change. Despite my opinion I am going to remain neutral in the discussion because I really would be ok with either outcomes. - SantiLak(talk)21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand. You think reverting good faith edits without discussing them or even reading the article is the right way to edit. You could have surprised me by saying what the good reason for the reverts was. Maybe you think it's more fun to keep everyone guessing. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You should follow BRD, there was no consensus for your changes so discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. - SantiLak(talk) 01:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC}
Don't lecture me on BRD when you're the one reverting without discussion. I'm on the talk page and you're not. You're the one who is edit warring and who won't give any reason for your edits. Felsic (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually should because you removed content without consensus and continued without discussion until today when you began discussing again. You also started a bunch of procedural moves such as the GA review that are just really based on you not getting your way. Your editing patterns are also clearly based on a POV that you hold and want to insert into the article. Also I am aware of the discretionary sanctions so no need to harass me by posting them as I haven't violated them at all, you should probably take a look though. - SantiLak(talk)22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Well whether it was uncalled for is not really for us to discuss as this isn't a forum for discussion but the stated goals by the US were to retaliate against Libya for their involvement in the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing by attacking their military, intelligence, and government sites and reduce Libya's military, intelligence, and government capacity. They did succeed in that. - SantiLak(talk)06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement said that it condemned the "dastardly, blatant and unprovoked act of aggression". What you would call it? It was raised in UN. By a vote of 79 in favor to 28 against with 33 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 41/38 which "condemns the military attack perpetrated against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on April 15, 1986, which constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law". Check international response. Since none of the available sources claim any victory or defeat, parameter should be blanked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have recently (officially) joined Wikipedia, and I believe we share many similar interests (international affairs, terrorism, military history). I would really appreciate an "adoption," which I believe would go a very long way towards helping me become an effective and successful member of the Wiki community. In particular, learning the nuances of editing, creating an article and various Wiki protocols would be tremendously helpful and invaluable for me as a new user. I look forward to learning from you.
One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark(pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
I you move a page like you did here, you also need to check the talk page to see if there is a auto archive process and if there is alter the archive location to match the new talk page location. -- PBS (talk)
Reversion of Warnings
This is ridiculous. You have reverted a warning dozens of times. This is the very definition of a 3RR violation! You have vandalized my talk page and reverted my changes on an article repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not vandalizing your talk page, i'm trying to engage in discussion, something you obviously don't want to do. I have reverted your warnings because they are a total misuse of the warnings. You were warning me about spam additions of external links which I was not doing at all. - SantiLak(talk)03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Discuss what? That you are abusing wikipedia to promote a site you have a self interest in? That you are retaliating against me? That you reverted the 3RR warning against you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Discuss your ridiculous deletion proposal for which you have provided no evidence. I am not abusing wikipedia, you are. You abused those spam warnings. I am not retaliating against you and I have no self interest in the site but I do have a self interest in maintaining notable articles. - SantiLak(talk)04:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
So every blog is notable then? Whatever, its obvious you have studied the intricacies of wikipedia enough to dodge criticism and prevent your spam from being stopped. I give up. At least there is a record of your abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually every blog isn't notable, its the world most read gun related website, has been documented by major newspapers and involved in major national debates. In fact it is your abuse that has been documented here. - SantiLak(talk)04:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's the alexa ranking for [3] and they don't have more than TTAG and here is the alexa ranking for [4] and they don't have more than TTAG and here is [5] alexa ranking where they do have more so yea it is true. - SantiLak(talk)04:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Truth About Guns. 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
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. Amaury (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.
Hello, SantiLak,
The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
I'm somewhat irritated by your insistence on this statement in the headnote to the 15 onwards article. I have expanded the headnote significantly to contextualise the situation somewhat, and written a long explanation at the talkpage. I would very much appreciate your comments at the talkpage. Regards Buckshot06(talk)08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a note that my students in CJ2300 are working on the police corruption page. They're learning a lot about how to interact with Wikipedia editors, so please be patient with them. I've asked them to respond to your comments on their edits on the article talk page and hopefully they will do so soon. Also, I just wanted to let you know that with the image, they put it back up not realizing that you'd commented on why you took it down. Profmwilliams (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm glad to help them learn although I did get frustrated with the re-adding of the image over and over after numerous reversions but now I understand the circumstances. - SantiLak(talk)23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You suggest there is evidence that South Eastern Ukraine is under occupation. The IP who suggest it's not has explained their position on the talk page. Could you share the evidence you have there so this can be discussed?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I was confused, I was saying that they are a part of the military occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine by DPR and LPR forces which their forces are integrated into along with local volunteers, they aren't the only ones occupying it, the rebels are too. - SantiLak(talk)08:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Black Lives Matter article
Regarding the sentence you removed from the Black Lives Matter article, why not add [citation needed] or add the citation yourself before outright erasing the paragraph? --Aliceba (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Invitation
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Santilak. this is User:Dfrr i heard you are currently accepting adoptees. well since i see you've got no Current Adoptees. i would love to be your first. anyways please leave a message on my Talk page about this subject & we shall see what we can do (i am sure that we are going to be really great friends). anyways have a happy aprilDfrr (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))
Hello, Santilak! If you are to accept adoptees now, feel free to respond me if you agree to adopt me or not. It seems, that your areas of interests interfere with mine. (PM me:-))
Changes and consensus about the map in American_Imperialism
Check the map discussion and the new file. I need your consensus, I've made some changes to the legend and title of the map and I plan to include it in the subentry of US military bases, not in the head of the article. I think these changes are enough to convert the file in something completely objective. Let me get your consensus so I can edit the article and included, it took me the entire day to draw it, don't be mad at me ;)
SantiLak I see you're starting an edit warr throughout the whole wikipedia against Nagihuin.
Please stop the edit warrs and use the Talk page in each article. I'm not going to stop until you learn to use polite ways to do it, you're destroying Nagihuin work.
This encyclopedia is not about preserving one user's work, it is about improving it as a whole and if one user's work is damaging it, then it doesn't belong. Also again, threats are not how WP works, you should learn that. - SantiLak(talk)18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Santilak you're a perpetrator of Wikihounding and your case will be elevated to Arbitrators soon. I would reconsider your continuous destruction of Nagihuin work.
I disagreed with the inclusion of the map at all in this encyclopedia so far and I edited that way and am now in multiple discussions over it. I have not violated 3RR, I have done nothing wrong, I have given reasons for all of my additions. - SantiLak(talk)08:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't lie, SantiLak. You started the edit warr without giving a reason. And your reasons in the next editions are like the following: "USA does not exercise hegemony due to NATO, TTIP, TPP, ANZUS and other military and economic treaties". That is not a reason, that is just a biased comment that follows a political subjective and propagandistic agenda.
Santilak, you're following a policy of personal harassment over me and my work, without giving reasons, acceding to a peaceful talk and joining a stupid edit warr. I strongly recommend you to halter this destructive and disrupting attitude, join the talks and build a better Wikipedia. Nagihuin (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have given very good reasons, I have joined the talks, my editing is so much farther from "destructive" and "disrupting" than yours is. - SantiLak(talk)19:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs·email), Miyagawa (talk·contribs·email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey I saw you had created the 2015 attack on Dallas police article and I want to say thank you. Recent developments though have made me question the notability of the event, feel free to address them on the article's talk-page. Based on the info at the time you made the article yeah it was notable but things have changed or are changing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
2015 attack on Dallas police has been nominated for Did You Know
Sorry that I am in a bit of a hurry right now, but I think we should archive some old sections of Talk:List of secret police organizations because some discussions are stale, some of them have been discussed to exhaustion. What do you think of archiving some discussions on that talk page? Thanks in advance, --Marianian(talk)07:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I never got back to you about the adoption. I know it's way too late to apologize for not accepting your generous offer, but thanks anyway. GAB (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
→== Bulk Reverting the Truth About Guns article. ==
Hello, I'm Plbogen. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The_Truth_About_Guns because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Please make constructive edits instead of just reverting. If you have cited sources to removed comments, you should add them in with citation.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The_Truth_About_Guns. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Again you are free to make changes, but please do not bulk revert.
3RR is part of edit warring as I was noting and is most often the reason edit warring complaints are filed, I didn't carry out edit warring because I went to talk, and no one responded, no one discussed, no one tried to work with me, so ya a couple of months later I changed the article. - SantiLak(talk)21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
"so ya a couple of months later I changed the article." No you reverted the article even the bits you admitted to have no problem with you. And just so you don't take another lack of response as agreement to do whatever you wish. I'm not going to respond to you on your talk page anymore. Please use the ANI. Plbogen (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes exactly, I changed it back, if you wanted to participate in the discussion it was perfectly easy, all you had to do was go on the talk page of the article which you were active on at the time of the original discussion. - SantiLak(talk)21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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.
First time I've heard of this arbitration case, it wasn't brought up in the last discussion on the article, if we're looking at 1RR violations then we are both culpable, me and Plbogen. I think it would be wise to put this information on the talk page of the Truth About Guns . - SantiLak(talk)20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't read the whole ARBCOM decision when I posted that, I just had become accustomed to many articles with ARBCOM sanctions attached to have 1RR restrictions. - SantiLak(talk)20:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
List of US Wars.
I see that you reverted my edits. The Bay of Pigs was not a war and no US american military forces were fighting. It was a CIA operational failure and should not be recorded as a defeat. The US involvement in Russia should not be recorded as a defeat either because we were not defeated we simply withdrew our forces and that does not mark defeat JoeLee95 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is discussion precedent for the use of defeat instead of withdrawal in several cases on that article, I was on the opposite side of that argument for some of those but nonetheless the decision was made and it has to be abided by. - SantiLak(talk)01:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Santilak, I am sorry to say that your edit warring on the page Territorial defense battalions is less than constructive. More serious is the fact that you gravely damage Wikipedia's reputation by your unsupported claims about sensitive issues. You do not give a single reference for your claim that russian forces have invaded Ukraine, you simply assert that 'this has been established over and over and over'. In 2003, it had also been 'established over and over and over' that Iraq possessed WMD but you would surely agree that it would have been wrong to state that as a fact in an encyclopaedia. Out of courtesy I will not take any action pending your reply.Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Iraq and WMD's and this isn't a forum on Russian military activities in Ukraine. What you did was total POV pushing, it has been established on this encyclopedia, including in a heavily cited and well written article on it, that Russian troops invaded Ukraine. I am not damaging Wikipedia's reputation, i'm protecting it from POV pushing by you and others who seek to deny Russian involvement, my edits were very constructive as they prevented the removal of important facts from the lead of an article. - SantiLak(talk)22:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Refraining from making unsubstantiated claims is the opposite of 'POV pushing'. As concerns Iraq's possession of WMD, I am confident that you understand the analogy perfectly well. If you think that 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is a reliable source, why did you not insert it in the article? Perhaps you were aware that it has been criticised for Abuse of sources and Breach of Neutrality,anyway self-reference is a bad practice for an encyclopaedia. You claim that Russian invasion of Ukraine is a fact, this is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, find unimpeachable sources that support these claims, like the UN or the OSCE for example.Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You aren't refraining from making unsubstantiated claims, you are pushing a clear POV. Also it has been criticized by a small minority of users who are also seeking to push a POV and are trying to game the system by throwing baseless criticism at an article. - SantiLak(talk)10:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Clearly this conversation is leading nowhere and I feel it would be better to discontinue it. I am not pushing any point ov view and I have little, indeed no interest in Eastern Europe. The problem is that we obviously have different conceptions of what constitutes evidence. I am inclined to question any unsubstantiated claim while you seem willing to believe any assertion put forth by the mainstream media. I would suggest you read 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky. In any case, I bear you no grudge in spite of our differences and I wish you the best.Againstdisinformation (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Againstdisinformation: Do not presume that you know things other editors don't. Arrogant assumptions that you know everything about US client-states and the media only demonstrates that you need to take a course in media censorship and self-censorship. Your dedication to the RT generation is a bit simplistic and sad, really. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I thought I had made clear I wanted to put an end to this conversation because I felt it was becoming too heated, and here you enter the arena like a bull, vindictively shilling for Santilak (not an avatar, I hope). In short, you depict me as an arrogant and simplistic ignoramus who is trying to lecture other editors on subjects about which he himself should better take a course. I would hate to be arrogant again, but allow me to tell you, simplistically, that I don’t feel this kind of frontal attack is conducive to the atmosphere of friendly collaboration which is necessary to improve Wikipedia. Besides, you completely miss the point (don’t take offence). I am not presuming anything; on the contrary I am trying to raise the standards for what passes as evidence. Santilak claims that the Russian forces invaded Ukraine. I am not saying they didn’t, I just note that the Russian Government denies it. Therefore, we should refrain to present this as a fact in an Encyclopaedia, unless we have unimpeachable sources like the UN or the OSCE. Wikipedia should have much higher standards than the media, which are notoriously biased. Againstdisinformation (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Againstdisinformation: "vindictively shilling" ... "you completely miss the point (don't take offence)."?! Talk about vying for the last word! Wikipedia is not a venue for personalising reverts by an editor who is following consensus, nor do you get to shut down a thread you've started because you want to play at 'I can't hear you'. Bold → Revert → Discuss does not mean taking the discussion to individual editor's own talk pages and proselytising over your perfect and exacting position on what reliable sources are, and what neutral POV means when it is apparent that you don't understand the policies, and that you are rehashing territory covered over and over. Please have the courtesy to avoid reckless edits by reading talk pages and talk page archives on controversial articles. If you bothered to follow the trail, you would find that this issue (and every other) has been discussed carefully and intelligently over months/years on the article talk pages, the WP:RSN, and the WP:NPOVN. These discussions have been protracted and exacting above and beyond your standards, and no editors are accountable to you for pointing out where every decision has been made and re-arguing the entire case ad infinitum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Please let us calm down, passion is incompatible with clearheadedness. I only objected to your first intervention because it was a personal attack which can be fairly summarized as a depiction of me as an arrogant moron. I fail to extract any other information from it. Of course you may be right, but this is besides the point. I don't see how anyone could describe your post as anything else than a personal attack. In your second post you make all sorts of accusations against me like 'personalising reverts', you want to play at 'I can't hear you, 'have the courtesy to avoid reckless edits' Then you proceed to again depict me as someone who understands nothing and doesn't even make the effort to learn. I have participated in many academic debates where positions were at odds, but this is the first time someone addresses me in this tone of voice. I would like to leave all this polemic behind and come back to the heart of the matter with this simple question: Is there a consensus in Wikipedia that a phrase like 'invading Russian Forces' indisputably reflects the facts, needs no source and that removing it constitutes 'reckless edit'? Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Santilak:Thank you for your comment on admin's noticeboard. Even if we don't always see eye to eye, at least we agree that inflammatory language and (incomprehensible) hostility is not acceptable. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No Gun Ri
Hello,
Hope you're doing well. I am currently engaged in a lengthy dispute resolution process over at No Gun Ri Massacre, which has seen a very heated debate between Cjhanley and WeldNeck which has seethed for years.
Part of it revolves around a sourcing dispute, namely, the credibility of the U.S. No Gun Ri Review Report, the initial AP reports (particularly the credibility of certain eyewitnesses), and of historian Robert Bateman. In general, the page has been a battleground, with frequent personal attacks, accusations of POV, bold edits against consensus, and so on, although it has calmed down as of late. It is important to note that Cjhanley is in fact one of the AP reporters who initially broke the No Gun Ri story, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize; also, WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. Both editors have compiled extensive lists of their grievances, and have dragged one another to ANI: [6][7][8][9][10] WeldNeck also attacked Cjhanley as a sockpuppeteer: [11]. Neither editor is blameless, to say the least. I filed a DRN quite some time ago.
For some time, I, along with Timothyjosephwood, Wikimedes, and Irondome have attempted to mediate, and we have successfully imposed an unofficial "freeze" on editing the page without prior proposals. The page has been fairly quiet for a while. Unfortunately, there has recently been some adding and reverting of content, as the "freeze" has begun to thaw out:[12][13][14][15] I would appreciate any help an experienced editor such as yourself could offer. If you are interested, I can also provide some sources to provide background, although some can also be found on the page's external links category.
Just to be clear before I start looking it over, you are just trying to mediate this right, you aren't actually in a real dispute with any of the editors over content? - SantiLak(talk)07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct. The edits I have made to the page have been either copyediting and sourcing, or addition of content that has been previously discussed and agreed upon in the talk page. I have reverted once, and that was to revert an addition of content that was not previously discussed. I had no problem with the content itself, we just need to discuss things before adding/removing content, lest it become another edit war. I've already been talking with Iryna Harpy on this, and she agrees that "Essentially, it's a protracted edit war with WP:OWN and POV-pushing at the heart of it." I may not have been a particularly skilled or successful mediator, but I have tried; just to be clear, most of the action took place earlier, so that's why the page is relatively calm. Thanks for getting back to me. GAB (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies to both of you for my tardiness in responding. I've had a couple of IRL issues to deal with for some time, therefore haven't been able to focus my energies as much as is needed with regards to this issue.
Yes, GeneralizationsAreBad has been in contact with me as to how best to mediate on what it a long-standing 'feud' between two editors; and, yes, having followed through on their editing history I understand this as a situation I'd be reticent to involve myself in further lest I become entangled enough to become 'involved'. I'm less concerned as to who is 'right' or who is 'wrong' when it comes to evaluating RS (or WP:BIASED) than I am with behavioural issues between the two editors who consider themselves to WP:OWN the article. As I understand it, GeneralizationsAreBad is genuinely acting as a mediator, and the article itself is subject to the protracted edit warring between the two editors who have taken on the role of ownership. As this has been been rejected at the DRN as being an ANI matter, the only way forward is to take it to the ANI. Further intervention on behalf of other editors has been attempted and rejected by the parties with behavioural problems. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for responding. Also, I did ask @PBS: if they would be so kind as to look over the dispute and perhaps help us out. While it would help a lot to know about the content, it's so intricate that it may not be worth it. I've collected some material here, although the article's external links has good stuff as well. As you can probably see, the civility issues were very serious before, but it's not so bad anymore on that particular front. The talk page archives give a good sense of exactly what went down. Let's hope for the best on this. GABHello!12:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, the two editors have become aware enough of the article content being scrutinised by other editors to back down and stay on track. Submitting to the ANI is of no use at this stage as the warring element has gone stale. My biggest issue is with Cjhanley as he's essentially an SPA who even notes that he's an ex-journalist, and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be held to ransom by op-ed content additions and removals of content. Should the animosity flare up again, it should be taken straight to the ANI and editors who have been watching the page (such as myself) should be pinged. I don't know whether SantiLak or PBS are interested in being pinged (we all have massive numbers of articles on our watchlists), but I'm sure they'll let us know whether they'd prefer to stay out of it. I'm just hoping that more eyes on the article does the trick. Cheers, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking to be adopted here on Wikipedia. I'm pretty tech savvy, but I'm lost here. For instance, I edited the Garfield High School (Akron, Ohio) page, and I don't know how to cite (or upload, or link to) a PDF file which I used as a reference.
It seems like you have a lot of the same interests as me, so I hope you will take me under your wing
I would like to contribute to the site, and I also want to expand my knowledge for my own personal projects like my blog.
I'm the kind of pupil who is more than happy to be given reading assignments, so if you could just point me in the direction of the information, I'll go learn it.
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
I just visited Khamenei's talk page and checked the article edit history and noticed that there's an edit warring happening there. I warned the involved editors and reverted an edit which I though has to be discussed per policies before being added to the article and discussed my edit on the talk page. But to my surprise, Shazaamireverted my edit! I went to his talk page and notice your warning to him. He did not pay attention to the topic on the talk page, while the policy enforces the one who wished to add the disputed source to achieve the consensus.Mhhossein (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This war began in Afghanistan to stabilize that country since it was suffering from sort of ongoing civil war (between Northern Alliance and Taliban). The War on Terror is too broad because it covers the entire world. That's like saying the war in Afghanistan is part of World War II. As editors and being familiar with the topics, we're suppose to make it clear for the readers, not make it confusing.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It didn't begin to stabilize the country, it began as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in response to the 9/11 attacks, Operation Enduring Freedom being the US government's official name for the war on terror. It isn't like saying the war on Afghanistan is part of World War II and it makes a lot of sense to list it as a part of the war on terror because it is in fact part of that larger war, and again was the first war in that global war. We are making it clear to readers, that the war in Afghanistan is a part of a larger global war on terrorism, it's not being made confusing with that listed there. - SantiLak(talk)16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 (talk)Oh yes, I know that we will have some disputes on some invasions relating to my country-Vietnam
Hanam190552 (talk)Firstly, I think we should reach a consensus on the definition of INVASION.
Hanam190552 (talk)In my opion, INVASION in the foreign relations means the incursion of an army for conquest by NATIONS of COUNTRIES. Therefore, INVASIONS only occurs between NATIONS. In current time, You cannot say that the Free Syrian Army is invading the Syria of Bashar al-Assad's regime. Or, You cannot say that "in the American Civil War, the United States invaded the Confederate States of America. Ofcourse, our war in Vietnam, my home is different to those two wars I have listed. Those two war are two civil war and the war in Vietnam is a war of ressitance. There is no ivasions between North Vietnam and South Vietnam because they are not NATIONS and The US invaded Vietnam
Hanam190552 (talk)Secondly, Why North Vietnam and South Vietnam ARE NOT NATIONS
Hanam190552 (talk)The Democratic Republic of Vietnam is a constitutional government. After the August Revolution in Vietnam, the temporary government of Viet Minh was established. In January 1946, the DRV hosted the first general election in Vietnam to establish the government of the DRV and the 1st National Assembly of Viet Nam Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Hanam190552 (talk)As we see, the DRV, the ROV of the Viet Cong are different governments, not nations
Hanam190552 (talk)The AGREEMENT ON THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN VIET-NAM, JULY 20, 1954, The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present declaration and in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam.
Hanam190552 (talk)Accrording to the Article 15(a) of the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, signed in Paris and entered into force January 17, 1973., The military demarcation line between the two zones at the 17th parallel is only provisional and not a political or territorial boundary, as provided for in paragraph 6 of the Final Declaration of the 1954 Geneva Conference[2]. The Article 1 of the Paris Peace Accords also says that: "The United States and all other countries respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Viet-Nam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Viet-Nam".
Hanam190552 (talk)Therefore, Repubic of Viet Nam, Viet Cong and Democratic Republic of Viet Nam are considered as goverments or regimes in Vietnam, not as countries or nations. So, there is not any invasion between North Vietnam (Democratic Republic of Viet Nam) and South Vietnam (Repubic of Viet Nam and Viet Cong).
Hanam190552 (talk)As we see, the DRV, the ROV of the Viet Cong, again, are different governments, not nations
Hanam190552 (talk)Because they are not countries, how can we call their conflicts are invasions?
Hanam190552 (talk)Thirdly, I know the US has not offcially recognized that the US invaded Vietnam yet
Hanam190552 (talk)The deployments of the US army in Viet Nam violated the UN Charter because the United Nations Security Council had not allowed the deployment of the US.
Hanam190552 (talk)The deployments of the US army in Viet Nam did not be accepted by any governments in Viet Nam. The deployment of the US army violated articles in the AGREEMENT ON THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN VIET-NAM, JULY 20, 1954 of prohibiting foreign interfrence to Viet Nam while the US declared that it respected the 1954 GENEVE Aggreement
Hanam190552 (talk)The deployment of the US made the Vietnam war become a war of resistance carried by Vietnamese, the DRV and the Viet Cong.
Hanam190552 (talk)I think our disputes come from disputes of documents. Perhaps You use American documents and I surely use official documents of Vietnam. I think you read distorted or manipulated documents of some people wanting to distort Vietnam's history. Now I want to repair misleading information on the Wikipedia. I wish you will cooperate with me.
Hanam190552 (talk)In my idea, We should note that "North Viet" denies the blame or should delete the war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam
Hanam190552 (talk)We should add the invasion of the US to Vietnam with the note that The US denies the blame
@Hanam190552: Regardless of the de jure definitions of whether they were governments or actual nations at the time of the split in 1954, the Republic of Vietnam aka South Vietnam was then recognized by 88 countries in 1955 as its own independent nation. That nation was separate from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam aka North Vietnam which ruled the northern part of the country. Regardless of the North Vietnamese view that the entire country should be under their control, from 1955 until the fall of Saigon, South Vietnam was an independent nation and those invasions by North Vietnamese forces were no matter what you like to think, invasions of another country. The US troops that went into South Vietnam, despite whatever political opinions you may have on their deployment, went in with the consent of the South Vietnamese government, as such it wasn't an invasion. Also another piece of advice, next time you write something, you can just write it out then sign it at the end, you don't have to sign for every sentence you write and the separation between the posts makes it difficult to follow your arguments. - SantiLak(talk)17:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
How can you give me any information that South Vietnamese, not Republic of Vietnam, agreed the deployment of the US army
If there are dispute. Why don't we note that in the list North Vietnam denies the conflict as invasion with conflicts in 1972 and 1975 and The US denies the war as invasion with the conflict from 1955.
@Hanam190552: If by the "South Vietnamese" you mean the population of South Vietnam, that's still irrelevant to the list of invasions article. The internationally recognized government of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), gave the US permission to deploy troops. We don't need to note a denial of something being an invasion by either side because technically speaking the North Vietnamese invaded the South. The definition of an invasion as provided by wikipedia is "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof." South Vietnam is one geopolitical entity and North Vietnam is another one, as such they were invasions by the North Vietnamese into South Vietnam. - SantiLak(talk)03:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)You cannot say the South Vietnam is a countries, 88 nations recognised South Vietnam as a nation but all nations. Communist nations and other African nations do not recognise the Republic of Vietnam, established in 1955 but they had recognised Democratic Republic of Vietnam since 1950.
Secondly, I can ask you that what nation recognises the first nation. If there is no country recognise the first nation, does the first nation become a nation?
So that the recognition does not make an enity become a nation, the recognition only facilitate that enity take part in foreign affairs
The DRV had establish its' control by the 1946 gneneral election before the establis of Republic of Vietnam. As the result, the was only one Vietnam, which was controlled by the DRV.(talk) 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 there is no consensus for your views and in your short time on Wikipedia you have become extremely disruptive, leading to me reporting you for multiple edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
We cannot consider South Vietnam as a country, the recognition of the US and other did not make Republic of Vietnam become a country.Hanam190552 (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If the DRV was the representatives of Vietnamese people, the US invaded Vietnam.
I think we should compare with the invasion of Soviet Union to Afghanistan. Democratic Republic of Afghanistan agreed the deployment of Soviet troops, you say that it is an invasions. Why not the US.Hanam190552 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hanam190552: Even though I believe your description of the situation is completely misguided, this is not a forum for discussion on which Vietnam was the real Vietnam. It all comes down to the definition of an invasion as provided by wikipedia which is "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof." South Vietnam is one geopolitical entity and North Vietnam is another one, as such they were invasions by the North Vietnamese into South Vietnam, no matter if you believe one was not properly recognized or something. - SantiLak(talk)06:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Courtier1978: I left the warning on both of your pages because you both were edit warring on that article, it was not in relation to any other article except for that one. You were both edit warring and you both need to resolve the dispute through talk and not continue reverting as you did today. - SantiLak(talk)21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Courtier1978 is intentionally adding wrong information. There is a fine line between edit warring and actually reverting vandalism. Would the 3RR apply if someone kept changing the outcome of World War II to "decisive Axis victory"? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: Read WP:NOT VANDALISM, because what the other user is doing, albeit disruptive, is not vandalism, you both broke 3RR and you both are edit warring, you need to immediately stop editing the page and discuss it on talk, if not the page can be protected so no one can edit it and both of you could be subject to a block for edit warring. - SantiLak(talk)23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not a matter of content dispute, but a case where a user is consistently and consciously adding wrong information. If some stubborn user insisted the Axis won WWII, I am willing to bet no one would uphold the 3RR in the name of WP:NOT VANDALISM. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about any theoretical scenario, it's about the one right now in which both users are edit warring, at least Courtier1978, despite having been edit warring, has agreed to stop reverting, something you didn't do. It doesn't qualify as vandalism, it qualifies as an un-constructive edit but as much as you may hate an un-constructive edit, it isn't an excuse to edit war. - SantiLak(talk)01:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Mikrobølgeovn has just reverted again, with out any concession, in the talk page, he is lying as usual and accusing other users, as usual, on totally false charges. How exactly did he came to the conclusion that I intentionally add wrong information and vandalize and who is adding World War II to be decisive Axis victory? Perhaps, is he accusing, as usual, other users for what exactly he is doing, as usual, as well?
Mikrobølgeovn is a problem both for NPOV in Wikipedia and other users adding NPOV versions. You can check the evidence that I have provided. They are overwhelming and he is a problem, for a very long time now, as evidence showsRon1978 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the place to resolve your dispute and Courtier1978, do not revert the change he made, that's just continuing edit warring. - SantiLak(talk)23:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi SantiLak,
I found your listing in the mentors list. Our interests are similar, and you otherwise seem like the best mentor for me. I'm new and I need to learn the ropes, but I'm a technically adept, eager, quick learner who's good at asking questions. Please let me know if you're willing to adopt me.
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
At the time the article could not go into much depth about the police misconduct because an investigation was under way by the government agency that handles complaints against the police force.
Subsequently 4 officers have been disciplined, one left the force, the force has had to pay damages and the whole constabulary has had to go for further training in this area of law.
You wrote it's not a good image. I was actually rather proud of finding it. What do you not like about it? Maybe I can find a better one by your standards. I don't have many choices, but do have some. --GRuban (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a screenshot and the shot isn't very good one at that, it's blurry and pixelated and looks very much like a screenshot which makes it not as good of an image and it's also not that very good of an image for a model or person at that, the rule of thirds lines are not in sync with it, her head is at the very top, it doesn't have to be perfect but in my objective opinion, the image is not that good. - SantiLak(talk)04:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
All true. Here is a picture that I hope fixes much of that: Bella Hadid for day 15 of LOVE Magazine Advent 2015 not blurry, nor pixelated, the head is not at the very top, and close to the rule of thirds. Unfortunately the eyes are not visible, and at the default image size, the person is rather small. So I put yet a third as the new infobox image, even though that does have some blur, I believe it is an improvement. But if you would prefer this one, I won't object if you change. Or you can recrop this one, I was tempted to do that myself. Or if you want to get better frames from either of the two Creative Commons Attribution videos these came from, I again probably won't object either; there are other numerous possible frames. Thank you for contributing to the Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The new photo is a very good improvement from the last one, thank you for your work in uploading it and adding it to the article. - SantiLak(talk)00:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
I also noticed that several of your interests are very similar to mine.
Would you be willing to consider me for adoption?
Thanks,
Willem
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 George Washington Colonials men's basketball team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power Forward. 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.
@Bagumba Here is another source confirming it, Today, not ESPN, which by the way, did not list Bradley Beal on the roster, it listed him as having withdrawn. This isn't some player signing in the free agency or being traded and a reporter tweeting about it, it's seven sources confirming to a RS the names of people on a roster, it's not premature to add it and WP:SPORTSTRANS doesn't really apply in this case. - SantiLak(talk)03:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Granted USA Today says "seven people with knowledge of the roster told USA TODAY Sports", and I'm sure most if not all of them will be on the roster, but this is a typical sports case where an official announcement will be given, Monday in fact. This is consistent with the WP:RSBREAKING guideline: "This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements." Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bagumba I disagree with your application of RS:Breaking in this situation as it would make sense if we were to list players that journalists claimed they confirmed weeks ago, but not when they finalized the roster and a solid RS has 7 sources confirming it to them (Not Bleacher Report). This isn't like the aftermath of let's say, some sort of shooting where they don't have an accurating death count and RS:Breaking can be applied. Despite that, if you really want to wait until Monday for USA basketball to announce that exact lineup, that's fine, and it isn't really worth arguing over our interpretations in order to get you to add it back even though i'm certain that it adds encyclopedic value to the page and doesn't do any harm considering the confirmation by RS. Best wishes. - SantiLak(talk)03:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
While the US Olympic article has interest beyond just the NBA, consensus in WikiProject NBA is to generally wait for the official announcements if one is expected to be forthcoming. Consensus can change. Not sure if you are interested on doing updates for upcoming NBA free agency period, where similar reports based on "sources" will be rampant. If you wish to make things more lenient, you can start a discussion in advance at WT:NBA. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tokhar massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RT. 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.
Would you please tell why you undid my revision n Inter_Services_Intelligence page?? That was fairly unfair. How could you change updated information? Was not it CORRECT? Was not it RELIABLE? was not it VERIFIABLE??? That was rude and impolite to undid revision which is not in your interests.
please describe thanksAKJatt (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@AKJatt: The section you created pushing a certain POV about the ISI, a pro-ISI view, whether that intentional or not. The reversion has nothing to do with any political "interests" you might infer, instead it has to do with my interest in maintaining neutrality in Wikipedia. - SantiLak(talk)00:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Nicknames in lead
Saw your revert at Ben Simmons to add Ben in quotes after Benjamin with the explanation that it follows MOS. To my knowledge, that was removed from MOS a while ago. See examples of Bill Clinton at MOS:BIRTHNAME or John Edwards at MOS:LEGALNAME. However, it seems the article no longer reflect the MOS change. In light of this, I'm resigned to think there is no real consensus on the handling of "obvious" nicknames. On my end, I'll probably not bother with it anymore on any article. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
After reading both MOS references provided, it seems to me that neither of those actually prohibit names from being written that way in a lede and while I may have been thinking back to a past MOS, I don't see a need to change the formatting for the Ben Simmons article, as the same lede MOS, whether official or not, is used across a plethora of articles where the article title is a person's nickname, including John Edwards and Bill Clinton. Either way, if you don't want to bother with it, that's fine, but thats pretty much my two cents on the issue. - SantiLak(talk)05:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.
Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hello, SantiLak. 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.
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.
For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
First place – $200
Second & Third place – $50 each
Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.
Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.
After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:AAU
Are you able to adopt me? I see you on the list and I thought you might be a good military history "mentor" or whatever. To respond, please use this page. GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@GermanGamer77: Although following this I probably won't want to be an adopter considering my time availability, considering you reached out sure I can help you out. Just some baseline questions, are you interested in anything other topics besides military history? Are you interested in creating articles primarily or improving existing articles, removing vandalism, patrolling recent changes and such? You also may not be familiar with some of these terms but hey i'm here to help with that. SantiLak(talk)03:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Follow up, looking at your edit history it appears that you also sought adoption from other users which is fine, please let me know if you still want to be adopted because as I have recently gained some free time when I will be back on WP more than I usually am. - SantiLak(talk)03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'd still like to be adopted. I am interested in ALL of the topics you mentioned. What time zone are you? I'm PT (-8 hours from universal) Thanks SO MUCH! GermanGamer77 (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@GermanGamer77: I'm in the eastern standard time zone but in several days I will be moving back to the pacific standard time zone. Before we get into the specifics of certain parts of editing, i'd say its a smart idea to take a look at this and this, its a box with links to a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as an editing cheatsheet that will help you when editing source. When I first started I had no idea about some of that stuff and ended up making some big mistakes so its good to take a look at that beforehand. After that I think we can get started on some more editing, but I do think we should wait for you to have some more experience before you start creating articles. - SantiLak(talk)20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Great! How do I work the Anti-Vandalism Training academy thingimajigger? Can I learn or something? And is your time zone +3 to mine? So would it be 9:30? GermanGamer77 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@GermanGamer77: I've never gone through the counter-vandalism academy training, I kind of just picked it up on my own by looking at the Vandalism guidelines and then getting started by looking at recent changes by IP users on sites like this and looking for pages I thought would be controversial or likely to be vandalized. Something important to know is there is a difference between vandalism and un-constructive edits and additions to articles. For example this is an edit I reverted recently that is vandalism while this is an edit that while un constructive, does not qualify as vandalism. The difference is important because while both should be reverted, the criteria is different for both reversions. I also noticed that you were interested in using tools that require rollback privileges and if you strive to gain those at some point, it is important to understand the differences. You also have to remember to use the edit summary box and say whether it is vandalism or what other reason you are reverting the edit. - SantiLak(talk)02:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@GermanGamer77: If you are an autoconfirmed user and you activate Twinkle a couple of tools will become available to you. One is that at the top of an article where you see the edit source, new section, view history, and more options, next to those on the right you will see a "TW" which gives you twinkle options. It shortens the process of doing things such as warning a user on their talk page about vandalism or unconstructive edits as well as providing for easy access to deletion templates for if you eventually decide to begin patrolling new pages, something that I suggest you wait a bit before doing. It also makes reverting edits a lot easier by giving you the "Rollback AGF" "Rollback" and "Rollback VANDAL" options when you are looking at differences between revisions. The Rollback AGF option is for rolling back edits without adding an edit summary that are edits made in good faith but need to be reverted. The Rollback VANDAL option is exclusively for vandalism and doesn't have an edit summary. It is important that you use that only for vandalism and not for un-constructive edits. The rollback options allows for you to rollback certain selected edits and add an edit summary in a window that pops up for your browser, making the reverting process easier. One other tool that it provides you with is the capability to restore one version of a page when looking at the difference between versions as an option comes up on the left side above the previous version that says "restore this version." That is basically how twinkle works, if you have any other questions feel free to ask. - SantiLak(talk)03:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@GermanGamer77: I noticed you submitted an AFD on the Serbian National Baseball Team and I think it might be wise to take a step back when submitting AFD's. Articles like that, although short, meet notability standards, and when you said "I think we should expand it, or delete it." you are correct in that it should be expanded but just because it is short and a stub, does not mean it should be deleted. Notability is something important to keep in mind for the future when it comes to submitting AFD's as just because a topic is not covered with detail, does not mean it should be deleted. - SantiLak(talk)22:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. realized you were not notified, the discussion and issue is taking a turn for a larger scale issue. Thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as 
Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.
Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Plbogen. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The_Truth_About_Guns because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The_Truth_About_Guns. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Again you are free to make changes, but please do not bulk revert.
Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was 
Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
.svg)
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. 
Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.
.jpg)
Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by 
MPJ-DK (submissions), 
Hurricanehink (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), and 
Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by 
Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by 
J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.
Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by 
Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by 
The C of E (submissions) and 
Hello, I'm Bagumba. Your recent edit to the page 2016 United States men's Olympic basketball team appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Note that the same ESPN page had Bradley Beal on it, who today withdrew. Just wait until Monday. —Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber (submissions)
MPJ-DK (submissions)
Adam Cuerden (submissions)
SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and 
Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
GermanGamer77 (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
GermanGamer77