User talk:Someone97816

Proposed deletion of Shadeed Abdul Mateen

The article Shadeed Abdul Mateen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about somebody who is a possible suspect in an ongoing murder investigation. Je has not been found guilty of any crime and is therefore not notable at this time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Anti-Americanism

Here's why I reverted your latest edit to Anti-Americanism [1]. The edit adds the word "more", but doesn't say "more than what?" You are trying to convey that Biden is more popular than Trump in Greece, and indeed he is. But what you are doing here is synthesis, i.e. taking two elements from sources and combining them to draw your own conclusion. Even if that conclusion is true, the source (the Pew Research poll) doesn't mention Trump at all in the question posed, so "more than Trump" isn't supported by that source. Alas, Wikipedia can't embody all the truths of the world, only those that can be found in outside sources. Rest assured that any poll not including deluded cult members would show that Trump is less popular than even a rancid potato, so just be satisfied that it is a self-evident truth among almost all people, and that it doesn't need to be in Wikipedia. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine. But I still dont think the use of term "very" is appropriate for ony 67%. Maybe other more neutral word? Purekung (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. "Very" is subjective. What's "very"? I just took that word out of the article. 14:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ThanksPurekung (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tala Halawa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tala Halawa, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tala Halawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Murder of Mohammad Anwar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. None of the news websites you added, nor the Twitter link, are reliable sources. They are either primary sources that go beyond ABOUTSELF or fail the neutral point of view guideline. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And those "reliable source" u r talking about is not on the WP:RSPSOURCES. Also, I know twitter generally is not reliable source but can be used in certain situation, which is exactly what I did here. You can check WP:SELFSOURCE for more information. It seems to me that u try to whitewash the whole incident to fit your narrative. If u still disagree with me. I am happy to take it to noticeboards for more people to review it --Someone97816 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Murder of Mohammad Anwar, you may be blocked from editing. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I already stated that I stand by my discussion. From what I see you just use the excuse of "unreliable sources", "disruptive editing." or "advance a minority viewpoint" to fit your narrative. And as I said couple times, I am more than happy for more people to review it. So if u call all the edits that u dont like is "disruptive editing", than wiki truely have a problem Someone97816 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Someone97816 reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: ). Thank you. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please see the message at Talk:Debito Arudou#Please remove recent edits which I have not yet had time to think about. Johnuniq (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at WP:BLPSOURCE. The sourcing requirements for biographies of living people are strict, so as a general rule you should only cite respectable publications when you add material to them. For example, take the citation to tanteifile.com that you added to Debito Arudou. This website is run by one individual according to its administrator profile page, which means that it lacks the editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires to judge something as a reliable source. This means that it cannot be used to back up statements on biographies of living people (or on Wikipedia articles in general, for that matter). On biographies of living people, material cited to sources like this is liable to be removed immediately and without discussion. Let me know if you have any questions about this, and I will be happy to answer them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JB

Sorry Someone97816, but it seems like Chipmunkdavis really does not want Japan bashing to exist as a stand-alone article, even though multiple people are against such a thing. 103.144.232.60 (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then at least help extent the section in the page of anti japanese sentiment. There were a lot of important informations in that article. Hate to see those went to waste. Also, if u dont mind, take this incident to another noiceboard to see if other people can help restore it Someone97816 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Someone97816, the IP above is a banned user who is deliberately baiting you to cause trouble. Regarding the Japan Bashing page, please do not try and recreate the text in question, as the user in question regularly fakes sources, meaning text they produce has no credibility. However, if you personally feel that the sources that were present are both reliable and useful, I would encourage you to read them yourself add new text to the Anti-Japanese Sentiment page. (In time, perhaps there will be enough content to make a spin-off into a separate article natural.) Best, CMD (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity law of China

Hello. Your edit was reverted. But I do think it can be put back in another section in the page. 69.157.143.65 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Amigao is going around deleting things he dont like in China-related articles. This is just one of them. You can add it back but he might delete it again using the excuse of depreciated sources. Someone97816 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Someone97816! Your additions to Wind power in China have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]