![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
hewhoam areismyself 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
And Adoil Descended ( talk) 15:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)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 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, Number 5 7 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for creating TTAG, SantiLak!
Wikipedia editor Missionedit just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks!
To reply, leave a comment on Missionedit's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 08:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)That was quick! Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 03:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi, I think you should do like what I did and semi-protect your user page. Some anonymous editors just know no bounds. -- Marianian( talk) 05:33, 1 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)
Hi, Have asked admins to protect the Battalions of territorial defense in Ukraine page due to constant vandalism by New/ip address users. D Eaketts ( talk) 10:15, 1 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: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
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 ƬheStrike Σagle 12:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
![]() |
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)
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
JacobiJonesJr ( talk) 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 6 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.
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)
Wenlepore ( talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)thanks SantiLak Wenlepore ( talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
is my wish. but please dont delete my head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Mohnani ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
References
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)
References
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)"
Any answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.251.56 ( talk) 21:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
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.
John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhohener ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
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
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 [email protected] so I'm not sure why it is still being deleted. Cpg819 ( talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my edit of birth control. I don't know how to cite a source 24.207.79.50 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your RPP request was mostly granted. — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 18 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)
The information I edited was correct.
www.nypsystem.org for a list of current members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.46.26 ( talk) 00:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
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)
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
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.
Best,
Roamingcuriosity ( talk) 13:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 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.
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.
You thanked one of my edits, and you want to stop the edit warring, right? I want to agree here, so what do you say? Kirothereaper ( talk) 07:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
...Well, it was worth a try, I guess. Oh well. Kirothereaper ( talk) 10:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:57, 15 December 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.
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)
I have personally scene the petition:
PLEASE CALL Aaron Troodler (888) 897-7450 FROM THE MEDIA IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS EVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcepeci ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Here are some sources:
1. http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/500-pro-zionist-orgs-petition-obama-release-pollard/
3. http://unitedwithisrael.org/prominent-americans-advocate-releasing-jonathan-pollard/
4 http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2011/010311.pdf -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcepeci ( talk • contribs)
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.
Please re-edit the petition to your liking and place it back on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseph davido ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Your recent overhaul of Occupy Oakland was outstanding. I commend you for your even-handed yet bold editorial approach. It was, in this case, exactly what was needed. JohnValeron ( talk) 16:23, 22 December 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, 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 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) |
Dear SantiLak,
Would you please adopt me? I want to learn copy-editing. :)
Duxwing ( talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind! Duxwing ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
Good luck!-- 2602:306:3600:95B0:84C8:C95A:DF69:9063 ( talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Need your help here Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I made a request for the move and laid out that a majority agrees after a lengthy discussion and based on sources but an editor has come up to oppose the re-naming. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The administrator denied the move and requests an official RM. We need to vote now. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:25, 22 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)
Talking to myself gets boring. Use the talk page before doing another knee jerk Twinkle revert. 162.119.231.132 ( talk) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What makes you believe that it was the victory of the US? Last stable version [2] had no results about the victory or defeat. Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Hope all's well.
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.
Thanks,
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 00:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
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:
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!
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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. Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email)
Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.
( Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -
Amaury (
talk) 05:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
SantilLak, You were mentioned on ANI (not by me ) over here . I see the user didn't notify you, and I am taking a moment to do so. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:35, 18 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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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 april Dfrr ( 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:-))
Hello, Santilak, you're invited to /info/en/?search=Talk: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 ;)
This is my proposal, feel free to check it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_imperialism&oldid=659219308
Nagihuin ( talk) 01:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
LadyBeth ( talk) 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_imperialism&action=history 1. Nagihuin posts a map. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_imperialism&oldid=659173706 2. First Santilak action: UNDOING without giving a reason https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_imperialism&oldid=659211177 3. Nagihuin reposts it giving a reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_imperialism&oldid=659211741 4. Santilak continues its actions 2 times more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Empire&action=history 5. Nagihuin posts a map. 6. Santilak removes it 3 times more while Nagihuin gives reasons. Santilak does not start a talk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pax_Americana&action=history 7. Nagihuin posts a map. 8. Santilak removes it 3 times while Nagihuin and me try to explain that the map is needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hegemony&action=history 9. Nagihuin posts a map. 10. Santilak removes it with peregrine reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_United_States_military_bases&action=history 11. Nagihuin posts a map. 12. Santilak removes it 2 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_United_States_military_bases&action=history 13. Nagihuin posts a map. 14. Santilak removes it until other users stop him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBeth ( talk • contribs)
LadyBeth ( talk) 13:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_claim_Nagihuin_is_subject_to_Wikihounding_and_under_pressure_by_Meatpuppetry
LadyBeth (
talk) 13:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | Hello, SantiLak.
2015 attack on Dallas police, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
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.
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. Thank you.
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.Your name was on a report at WP:AN3 involving a gun issue. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() | On 10 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2015 attack on Dallas police, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an armored van was used in an attack on the headquarters of the Dallas Police Department? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2015 attack on Dallas police. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 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)
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)
@ 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)
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.
Thanks very much,
GAB ( talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Viet-hoian1 and Viet-hoian2 are actually this user. I haven't bothered with an SPI as he's getting nowhere. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:24, 21 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.
Thanks
Heatherannastasia ( talk) 08:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Heatherannastasia ( talk) 08:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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:
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!
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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, Shazaami reverted 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)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 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)
Ah yes sorry, my mistake. I was quite tired then but I see now. -- Reaganomics88 ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 ( talk)Thank you so much for discussing with me
Hanam190552 ( talk)Please reply me soon, Thank you
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)In addition,
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)I think you should watch these video for knowing our arguements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ngg7LgONQ&list=RDv4ngg7LgONQ#t=68 (Eng Sub.) or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPY3XrYUXCE
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 ( talk)Thank you so much, my friend —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 ( talk)Thank you
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.
Thank you Hanam190552 ( talk)
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)
Mztourist Can you show it?
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)
Hanam190552 ( talk) 06:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)If South Vietnam is not a country, there is no invasion between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
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)
Hello! Could you adopt me? Thanks!! ᵗʰᵉʰºᵗʷʰᵉᵉˡˢᵍᵘʸ₉₉ ( ᵗᵃˡᵏ!) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Could you adopt me? Jfault/NoivernOfDoom 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the message that you have left in my talk page, I have to inform you that the other user, among all his other misconduct, is edit warring the articles for more than a year now continuously. I have written about this to an administrator, giving all the evidence needed recently. Here they are /info/en/?search=User_talk:Buckshot06#Cyprus_emergency Ron1978 ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, no worries, I have just started a discussion in the talk page of the article. Ron1978 ( talk) 21:54, 30 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 shows Ron1978 ( talk) 23:40, 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.
Regards,
Mjfalkner (
talk) 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
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:
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.
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
P.S. The External link "CBC - The Secret Policeman" goes to 'page cannot be displayed'. 86.7.125.24 ( talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my Ivory Coast-United States relations edits, which include more than the name change. Please see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2846.htm. Mistakefinder ( talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
I tallied all the wars America was involved in at the beginning of the page and it was reverted. Isn't this helpful? :o Even This Is Taken ( talk) 05:16, 20 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.
If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Figureskatingfan ( talk), and Godot13 ( talk).-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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 aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
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 aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
SantiLak,
I saw that you were offering to adopt a user.
I also noticed that several of your interests are very similar to mine.
Would you be willing to consider me for adoption?
Thanks, Willem
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.
Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by
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
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with
J Milburn (
submissions) completing nine.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that
Cas Liber (
submissions) claimed the first Featured Article
Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup.
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk ·
contribs ·
email),
Figureskatingfan (
talk ·
contribs ·
email), and
Godot13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
email).--
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Adoption |
Hi, I saw you were on the available adoptees list. Are you still available? If you are, will you adopt me? Elsa Enchanted ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.
Round 2 saw three FAs (two by
Cas Liber (
submissions) and one by
Montanabw (
submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by
Calvin999 (
submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by
Worm That Turned (
submissions) and five each by
Hurricanehink (
submissions),
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), and
MPJ-DK (
submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by
Adam Cuerden (
submissions) and five by
Godot13 (
submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) scored 265 base points, while
The C of E (
submissions) and
MPJ-DK (
submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with
MPJ-DK (
submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants,
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) and
Cas Liber (
submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
I see you are among the leading editors at Malik Monk. Would you consider helping me determine which images to use in the 2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game by commenting at Talk:2016_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 22 July 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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 thanks AKJatt ( talk) 05:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
/info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_secret_police_organizations#Include_Uzbekistan.27s_National_Security_Service 95.154.193.107 ( talk) 14:25, 12 September 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)
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:
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 will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email)
![]() Greetings, all! 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. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. 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.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Locksmith1865,
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.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
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.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
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):
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.
The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email).
Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
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.
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:
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.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) & MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
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:
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 Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
That makes sense. But how does Twinkle work?
GermanGamer77
(
talk) 14:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
GermanGamer77 (
talk) 03:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops. Lemme check some articles. *checks Cape Verde and Life expectancy by country GermanGamer77 ( talk) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)