An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasandia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Line 11 of Metro de Madrid 2020 enlargement.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Line 11 of Metro de Madrid 2020 enlargement.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enlargement of NATO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Baker. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker-Gorbachev Pact until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hi, I just wanted to make one suggestion. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, 1997 was a treaty signed between NATO and Russia in the 1990s. It's very much a real thing, was negotiated over several years, discusses new membership, and yet still doesn't have a Wikipedia article, only a short section at Russia–NATO relations. I don't quite have the attention to write it, but have hoped that someone would. And on that page, I would think there would be a "Background" section, wherein previous negotiations, like 1990, could be mentioned. Just a thought!-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk02:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me, this is a topic far larger and continued in time than a Treaty affecting Germany's reunification or the 1997 Act. I think these has been a topic adressed by politicians, historians and the media for a long time for its historical relevance. I would totally agree to change the name, perhaps to assurances instead of pact, or something similar, and even expand it. It could well have a section of Russian use as propaganda. But I'm still thinking this diserves its own article. Jasandia (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good article reassessment of NATO page
NATO has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Morgoonki (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Neil and LongLivePortugal
I'm afraid we are dealing with people creating systematic damage to impartiality and to Wikipedia. I have the impression that they are politically motivated. I do not understand how the admins allow them to operate so freely.
Their behavior is illustrated for example here. These are just a few words of solidarity. Cheers and keep strong! Morgoonki (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see... please let's not have this debate all over again. We have had this debate for over a week on the article Baker-Gorbachev Pact on whether to erase the article or not. The article, just as all I have added, was well referenced with a primary source (a US declassified memorandum on Baker-Gorbachev conversations) and a secondary and reknown source (Der Spiegel). After a week, the majority of editors agreed to merge the content of that article to the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany -I opposed but that was the decission. So, that's what I have just done. The sources were also discussed and considered valid.
So please, do not revert again my edition using false arguments, there are sources in all I have added. Tell me what is not sourced there after reading the memorandum. I'm tired of this biased war editing in Wikipedia. Jasandia (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jasandia! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
You mean they must do exactly what you have not done, looking for consensus? You just reverted a whole sourced edition (there were quite several previous paragraphs unsourced in that article, but that didn't seem to bother you). I have added a link to a discussion between several editors in Wikipedia regarding how material from a previous article should be merged in this one
What you call "sourced edition" is actually WP:Original research on Wikipedia, because you are adding your own interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources. And, they will be accordingly and if necessary deleted.
If there was a "consesus or merge" from another page, that does not mean that content that violates Wikipedia policies will be allowed to sit here for ever. Sandstein, can you clarify? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To which extent content is to be merged is an editorial decision, and accordingly requires editorial consensus. Editors may and should properly remove content, merged or otherwise, that fails Wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability and no original research, and if there is no consensus about that, one will have to be found on the article talk page. Sandstein 16:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect, but the material I added is sourced. So, if @Kautilya3 is to delete something, shouldn't he justify it and wait for a debate, instead of erasing whole paragraphs without the consensus you are talking about? Jasandia (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand a word of what you are saying. The sources are there and are clear NSA Archive/George washington University, Der Spiegel... Primary and secundary. They are "attributable to a reliable, published source" as WP:Original research says, and I am not adding any own interpretation. What am I adding according to you? Jasandia (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have done this edit three times now. If you do any more reverts during the next 24 hours, you are liable to be sanctioned. Don't say that I didn't warn you! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did an inclussion in the article and you reverted first, then twice but I'm the one reported. You take advantage of knowing the Wikipedia ways better than I do and having a lot of free times. If I knew how to report you, belive me I would Jasandia (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
