User talk:SantiLak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter[edit]

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:

  • Scotland 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.
  • Japan 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.
  • South Australia 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 Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


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! Face-smile.svg 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)

That makes sense. But how does Twinkle work? GermanyGermanGamer77Germany (talk) 14:49, 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)

Thumbs up GermanyGermanGamer77 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Germany

@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)

Oops. Lemme check some articles. *checks Cape Verde and Life expectancy by country GermanGamer77 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


I know what 3RR is. And you just did 3RR on this page. That's why I posted here that you should be aware of 3RR, but it seems that it didn't work out... (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's my own talk page and you were harassing me by copying and pasting notices seemingly just because I warned you on your page of legitimate violations and disagreeing with you in a content dispute. - SantiLak (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so 3RR doesn't apply to your own page. Good to know. And you started copying and pasting notices in my page. But I can't do it... (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't when its harassment and it's my page, and I posted notices on your page for actual violations, you violated 3RR on CFK, I did not, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference. - SantiLak (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Additonally, "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space" is a WP:3RR exemption. Additionally, WP:REMOVED was followed. DJAustin (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
My notice here was that you engaged in edit war and therefore you should be aware of 3RR. Which part don't you understand? (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You were harassing me with the exact same copied and pasted warnings from your own talk page, seemingly for warning you for your own violations and for disagreeing with you in a content dispute. -SantiLak (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
See, you didn't even tried to deny that "you engaged in edit war and therefore you should be aware of 3RR". It's easier to just call "harassment" I guess... (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I stopped myself from engaging in an edit war by discussing with you the issue on talk, albeit endlessly because you seem to be in denial that Pinedo ever was acting president. And yes, you were harassing me, with the copied and pasted un-constructive edit warnings and the edit warring warnings. - SantiLak (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you stopped yourself from engaging in an edit war, then you was engaged in an edit war. Hence the notice. A fair notice, not a harassment, since you engaged in an edit war. (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see a need to go in circles with you on this, you were copying and pasting those notices to harass me, I had stopped editing the article by then and you were reverting another editor. - SantiLak (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow. "I don't really see a need to go in circles with you on this", and then back to the circle again with the harassment. YOU said that you was engaged in an edit war, then the notice is fair. End of story. And provide one serious source about the topic. The media doesn't have any power to define who is president or not. (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
"I stopped myself from engaging in an edit war by discussing with you the issue on talk." I never said that I was engaged in an edit war, I said I wasn't and that I stopped myself, all of which is true. It's not a circle with the harassment, it's just plainly clear, thats what you were doing, the circle is what you are in, repeating the same inaccurate statements again and again. I provided reliable sources, thats part of how wikipedia works, we use reliable sources to back up assertions, I provided 5, detailed references with quotes from RS, all of which said that Pinedo was the acting president or president for those 12 hours. - SantiLak (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Those sources doesn't prove that "acting president" is not a loose translation. On the contrary, in one of your sources, Pinedo clearly states "I'm not president". And there are several sources of Pinedo and lawyers saying that "acting president" is a misnomer. And there is the Constitution, the Law, and the judge ruling which never mention that Pinedo can be "acting president". End of story. (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
RS says he was acting President. Pinedo says there is a law says he had to take the position. The source you seem to claim supports your position says clearly that he was the president. RS backs up unequivocally that Pinedo was the acting President. - SantiLak (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please, stop the edit war and continue the discussion in the Macri article. (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm still discussing it on the Macri talk page and here, I cited 6 sources on the Pinedo article, but you ignored them all, i'm not going to violate 3RR so it'll stay your way for now. - SantiLak (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Here you said that Pinedo sworn in as president which is false, and here that the title isn't in the law which is also false. Next time I'm reporting you. Last warning. Pinedonotpresident (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pinedonotpresident: I don't know what you are going to report me for considering I haven't violated policy but ok thanks for letting me know how you feel. - SantiLak (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Temple Mount page[edit]

I am still waiting for you or the "other editor" to delete all my contributions from the "protected page".--Jane955 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SantiLak. You have new messages at Talk:Bradbury, California.
Message added 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.