User talk:Openlydialectic

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Niqabu (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Openlydialectic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 04:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with updating and citing populations for cities in China! Λυδαcιτγ 06:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swen Vincke

Through WP:NPP I noticed your edit comment on Swen Vincke. Redirecting a (potentially) non-notable BLP can be a WP:BOLD edit as an alternative to deletion. The redirect had been stable for 18 months so it was not hugely controversial. Your restoring enters the article into a WP:BRD of which I don't really have an opinion but thought I would suggest an alternative spin on events. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article abit and replaced sourced with actually good ones, but admittedly the article needs more work since it doesn't mention his work on the actually popular games like the Divinity series. I'll start a discussion on the talk page as to whether the article should be removed. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Openlydialectic! You created a thread called A question about three revert rule and stuff at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hudaydah

Hi You are new here but a subject have been opened in talk page about using unreliables sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I didn't see that, sorry. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks & Edits to Tham Luang cave rescue

Hi there! In your edits to Tham Luang cave rescue, you have been linking to Samarn Gunan. Please refrain from doing so as it is a Red Link. Thanks! Broadwaygenius (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the web page you've just linked: " It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." That's exactly the reason I added it. You, on the other hand, did not explain why you've been trying to remove the red link from his name. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Openlydialectic: Is the article being created soon? I see nothing in draft space in relation to this person, or a request Broadwaygenius (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I am not creating it (I don't speak Thai). But as the rules clearly say: It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate (...) that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." Openlydialectic (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Openlydialectic: Is he notable though? Please read WP:MILPEOPLE. Just because someone passed away does not make them notable Broadwaygenius (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure he is, seeing how the two divers who discovered the kids had articles created about them. I am also guessing that he doesn't fit WP:MILPEOPLE but some other category seeing how hes most famous for dying in that cave and not for his military achievements, though I didn't spend a weekend memorising Wikipedia's documentation so I am not sure which category fits him the best. Either way, his death got him a lot of exposure in Thai media so there's no doubt theres enough info around about him. I would advice you to wait a few days, and remove the red link if, and only if, nobody creates an article about him Openlydialectic (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Openlydialectic! You created a thread called Adding your own parameters for infoboxes? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian language article

Hi, Openlydialectic. I've reverted your change to the Russian language article here. I'm not sure of what you mean by the former Soviet Union being a 'de facto' state, and certainly can't think of any reliable sources which would support such a hypothesis. If you think it's a justified addition, please take it to the talk page of the article in order to discuss the addition of such content. I'm certainly open to clarifying what is being postulated, and would welcome sources and a discussion. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I've understood what your intention was: to indicate that Russian was the de facto language of the Soviet Union. Actually, that isn't strictly correct, it was the official language and all documentation in every SSR was in Russian until (if I recall correctly) the actual dissolution of the USSR. It could be argued to have met with de jure or, more accurately, lingua franca for the Soviet Union, but I think it's a little convoluted for the purposes of the infobox. Perhaps there's a more succinct way of expressing this in the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed meant to indicate that, which is why I put the (;) sign between the two parts. I think the current infobox is highly misleading and it doesn't necessitate a discussion on the talk page since we are talking about an undisputed fact that can easily be verified by looking at the soviet law, which is why I reinstated the edit.

Saman Kunan

As a contributor to Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will check it out. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi. I noticed that you have a dispute with a user in the article Palace of the Parliament that has lead to an edit war. Per WP:WAR, reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than be engaged in edit warring. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reverting attempts by an IP to add some unknown blog to the lead of the article, that's all. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nagorno-Karabakh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artsakh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please desist from editing other people's Talk Page comments like you did here. Per WP:TPO:

 you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.  Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

This sort of vandalism could lead to a ban. XavierItzm (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: 1) That's not vandalism. Read what vandalism is before making new comments.

2) It was an accident. I have no idea how that stuff happens, your contribution that got removed was published 3 minutes before my contribution that, apart from adding my comment, somehow removed yours. I assume the comment that you've added and that was removed was added AFTER I started editing the page but before I published it, but when I pressed to publish the page I didn't receive any warning about edit conflicts or else. To that matter, one my comments (specifically, this one: [1]) disappeared from that talk page too, and I've seen other people complaining about their comments disappearing there. So I have no idea what happened, but it's probably a wiki glitch ot something along those lines.

3) Based on the two talk points above: assume good faith ffs. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong DR

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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

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

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

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please desist from posting irrelevant messages on other user's talk page like the one you posted on mine. If you bothered to check the infobox, you would have seen that he was already listed as British and Iranian before my edit, and if you need another source, check this.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: That article doesn't change the established consensus that he has to have a more direct link to the country than simply living there. And don't even get me started on your accusations that other users "spread Kurdish propaganda". Openlydialectic (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be my guest go ahead and start a discussion about this. Since you fail to check facts, just check this. FYI, Ponyo is an admin and he also asked Serchia to stop pro-Kurdish propaganda, i hope that you will go on his talk page and say him somethong like "don't even get me started on your accusations that other users "spread Kurdish propaganda""...---Wikaviani (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too invested to deal with you. It's been sufficient to say that you replaced his ethnicity from the UK-based Kurdish Iranian to the UK-based British Iranian without even bothering to change the two references that statement was sourced by. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am pretty sure removing warnings from your talk page as you just did is against the rules. Cheers. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My references were for the Iranian claim, not the British. And the link i added was pointing to "Iranians in UK", but of course, you did not even check that ...

"I am not too invested to deal with you" : you bet, it's just because you know you're wrong but you don't want to recognize it. Also, your comments saying "I am pretty sure removing warnings from your talk page as you just did is against the rules" just proves one thing : you don't know wiki rules, do you ? laughable. So let me explain you why i removed your irrelevant "warning": it was for two very good reasons : first, because i have the right to do so, check with an admin if you don't believe me. Second, because a warning posted by a user like you, who has not even checked Wiki rules, has absolutely no value whatsoever. Go learn rules instead of bothering other users, and if you need any help for that, just ping me, i will gladly help you. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Hello Openlydialectic. You may not be aware of WP:BLANKING, that user's are permitted to remove most warnings from their talks pages (re this). When they do, it is an acknowledgement that they have received the message. Restoring warnings like this often just inflames situations. Thanks, Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik:Oh. I am sorry, I didn't know that! I'll remove them at once. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt action! Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baiyue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong press coverage

Openlydialectic, would you like to discuss with me our differing views on inclusion of the {{Press}} template on the article talkpage at present ? My talk-apge may be a good venue so that any other objectors can find the discussion easily. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are really shouldn't have done that, and it leaves you open to an immediate block; no, I'm not going to needlessly escalate but do read WP:AC/DS carefully. FWIW I was about to propose restoration of the Atlantic article along with, following User:GRuban's suggestion, a note. If you are interested you can follow the discussion on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i am pretty sure it doesn't leave me open to an immediate block. You removed all press coverage claiming it violates BLP, but the Atlantic article certainly doesn't. You were supposed to start discussion on the talk page of the relevant article before removing anything, but you didn't. Instead you started a discussion on your own talk page, evidently, so that other users participating in the discussions on the article's talk page wouldn't see your changes because they would certainly be against it. Be glad I haven't restored the full version (including the Breitbart and other mentions) because I certainly will unless you are planning to start a discussion on the talk page of the ARTICLE, not on your own talk page. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that, and do read the policy I linked. I really don't want to issue more blocks or topic-bans. Take a break, if you find yourself getting agitated over such minor matters. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not too invested in the matter to argue with you endlessly. I started a discussion on the talk page to let the community decide Openlydialectic (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Openlydialectic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You can probably follow the events that led to my block via my contributions windows since I am way way too uninvested now to argue about it. But in very short (copy paste from a thread I tried to start on the Sarah Jeong talk page):
So the user Abecedare removed the news template from a talk page, and did so again after I reverted him. He claims the template violates WP:BLPDS, because it includes mention of an article on Breitbart with a provocative title. He claimed that on [own talk page] where he started a discussion on the matter. Yes, he started it on his talk page and not on the article's talk page, and I suspect it was done to hide the edit from users participating in discussions on the article's talk page. I've attempted to reinstate the template without mentioning the far right sources like Breitbart and Daily Caller (so that now the template only includes the article from The Atlantic, which certainly does not violate the WP:BLPDS. As a responce to that User:Abecedare threatened me with a block on my talk page. I replied that it was my belief that the community should decide what templates should and what shouldn't remain on a talk page and stated that I'll start a thread on the Sarah Jeong's Talk page, which I did (and from which I am copy-pasted the portion above this sentence), but Abecedare collapsed it, I reverted that action because it was seemingly against the rules and looked for me like an attempt to hide the discussion, but Abecedare turned out to be an admin and blocked me for disruptive editing, beside collapsing it again.
Are any of the edits I described above disruptive? Wasn't my logic sound? How come the admin's actions were not as disruptive as mine? Why remove the entire template and not just Breitbart and Co? Why hide the discussion first by starting it on his own and not the article's talk page and then by trying to hide the thread that I have started on the article's talk page? And how is it not a conflict on interest that I got banned by the same user I had this disagreement from the start? Shouldn't I have gotten a warning? I am not even asking for unblock since the block time is fairly limited, but can another admin (not Abecedare) please answer all these questions? Because I evidently don't understand alot of Wikipedia's policies and I probably need to know about them if I am to continue to edit Wikipedia after the unblock Openlydialectic (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked because the feedback I have received so far is that, at a minimum, I shouldn't have been the blocking admin. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suez Canal - infobox

You are right, the template being used was designed for articles on UK canals and is the responsibility of the UK Waterways project. It is completely unsuitable for large ship canals and in my view it's better not to use it at all, or just minimally. I notice that ship canals fall under the Maritime transport task force so maybe best to raise it there. Personally, I know little about infoboxes and templates, but I am happy to join you if you want to raise it there. I notice that the Panama Canal also uses the UK canal template, but doesn't any detailed info - I haven't checked any others. Davidships (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary, before you insult my maritime intelligence any further, kindly read and deeply understand Draft (hull), Air draft, the section of the Suez Canal article itself referring to the ship limitations, and this page by the Suez Canal Authority. You will discover that there is a difference between Draft/Draught of a ship, and the depth of water of a canal, river etc. Davidships (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology for emotional editing, even if I feel I am right on the substance.

On a discussion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/. Where we both voted to keep but had different opinion on the subject. I was asked to be redacted on the basis of neutrality and I felt it was unfair that I was asked to be redacted but not you. Hence when I saw someone else replied to your comment I jumped in, and you personally didn't call it. I apologize for that.

That being said the conversation was ok, and I will respond here. Pronouns to describe subject will be changed by the word person, most references to gender will be redacted, to give discretion to the subject.

Keep plenty of coverage, this nom just serves to prove the things that this person described in her book - some people in our society just want to purge all mentions of (Redacted) from the Internet. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ??? How does the notability of this person or lack thereof have anything to do with this person' gender??? And which source called her a "(Redacted)"??? — JFG talk 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I don't wanna say it out loud because I don't want to offend anyone, but do you really think everyone in the world is compeltely impartial to ones gender? As for the second question, I wasn't referring to any source. I call this person that. And many other people too. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I disagree with Openlydialectic. However this user as a right of opinion, and I feel if JFG wants to open that discussion, JFG should go to that talk page and start a discussion. My comment was asked to be redacted for posting the opposite. I feel this is unfair because I didn't post anything hyperbolic like the person above us. JFG does have a decent question and you should be able to use a source or explain your personal logic NOT pointing out what others do. JFG you should go to the user page and start a conversation with, if not asked the comment to be redacted.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Redacted for what? Are you delusional? Openlydialectic (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not have you redacted but in the case one has a strong opinion of something like calling someone (redacted), someone else should be able to question it. I'd rather have the other user to come to your talk page and ask you instead of asking on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page.

I would never ask you to be redacted because thought I may think your comment is hyperbolic, it doesn't call for any form of viciousness to people who disagree with you. My opinion on the person is negative to exact I wrote: Keep, this person is awful, but now notable. I feel it doesn't call for any form of viciousness to this person and to people who disagree with me.

On the basis that I've been redacted on neutrality basis, JFG has that possibility of doing this to you since he is questioning your comment. As per the paragraph above I do regret suggesting it to him.

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear tests under Vajpayee

Hi Openlydialectic! Thanks a lot for all your work on the Atal Bihari Vajpayee page. I understand that you modified the lead, removing the part about India becoming the sixth country to possess nuclear tests after Pokhran-II. It seems while India began nuclear testing in 1974, only in 1998 did it enter the nuclear club. Please see this. Would you be willing to restore the content? Thanks.  Shobhit102 | talk  14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caspian tiger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arroyo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Adelson

Hello, Openlydialectic! Thanks for wanting to improve the article Sheldon Adelson, but what you keep doing - adding "Jewish American" to the lede sentence - is against policy. It's not a matter of needing sources; it's that we do not put people's ethnicity into the lede. The fact that he is Jewish is already in the article, in the body of the text where it belongs. Please don't add this any more, or you could be sanctioned for edit warring. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Can you cite me this policy? Openlydialectic (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Openlydialectic! You created a thread called Is it possible to "revert" a clearly vandalistic page move, without all the voting procedures? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batman, Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

I see that you have been notified recently about the discretionary sanctions in articles related to Eastern Europe, and you have been blocked for disruptive editing, but it did not stop you from adding today to Alexander Zakharchenko poorly sourced and highly POV material. Other editors removed the material. If you continue, your account will likely be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, these are different discretionary sanctions. I will alert you now.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I would also like to notify you that the block you've mentioned was lifted almost immediately after it's imposition because it was a wrongful block to start with. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you got the message anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Not really, can you clarify to me how was my contribution "disruptive" in the first place? All I did was make a single contribution that was fully and properly sourced (each sentence had 3-4 references). I didn't revert anyone or edit warred anyone. The only thing i didn't do is start a discussion on the talk page, but AFAIK Wikipedia rules state that talk page discussions are only necessary when a contribution might be contentious and I don't think mine was. If anything, calling a person widely (as seen in my sources) described as a terrorist leader a "head of a republic" (as the current article states) is a contentious edit, but that edit didn;t go thru a talk page discussion. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not appropriate, since indeed not the majority but even 100% of Ukrainian sources call him terrorist, but including this info without attribution violates WP:NPOV - no other country calls him a terrorist. The same. Added POV material to the lede without attribution, citing highly partisan sources, including a blog (Euromaidan Press). Addition to the lede of unreliable info without attribution. Not really surprising that these edits were reverted within minutes. It is great that you decided not to edit-war, but it would have been even better if we were not in this situation to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Iridescent, I redacted some content in the same thread in which you scolded this editor for a pretty egregious personal attack. (Not sure if it's worth revdeleting...) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jair Bolsonaro

Those changes you are making in the article Jair Bolsonaro are not productive. The "highly" was removed, but the other information are correct and well sourced. For instance, his support for the Brazilian military dictatorship is well known and he does not deny it. Quite the contrary (source, source, not mentioning the ones in the article already). And for him being called "far-right" by "some", well it's not some. Vast majority of the WP:RS backed this up. Like the ones, reporting the recent stabbing incident (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc). As you can see, it's not "some". If you have problems with the article, use the talk page, but remember to bring your own sources. If not, it's just your opinion and that don't add well. Hope to have made this clear now. Bye. Coltsfan (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics alert

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

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R500 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (White power sign) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating White power sign, Openlydialectic!

Wikipedia editor Sam Sailor just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

When reviewing this redirect, I just want to leave a message that I googled "White power sign", and I find the term is in frequent use.

To reply, leave a comment on Sam Sailor's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Sam Sailor 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (White power hand sign) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating White power hand sign, Openlydialectic!

Wikipedia editor Sam Sailor just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Much less used than White power sign, but clearly used in sources. I may add that White power hand sign has gotten 870 pageviews in the last 30 days.

To reply, leave a comment on Sam Sailor's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Sam Sailor 20:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White power sign listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect White power sign. Since you had some involvement with the White power sign redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Civil War in 2004

The Second Chechen War was a Russian civil war since Chechens are Russian citizens since Chechnya, parts of Dagestan an Ingushetia are all part of Russia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Move discussion

Hi Openly,

Please note that the bot that maintains RM discussions only understands relisting if it's placed immediately next to the first dated signature after the proposer's statement. That's why it fails to recognize your relisting which was placed after the statements of many people who commented leaving several dated signatures. In addition, relisting is only done after the stipulated seven-day period elapsed, but in that case you did it just five days midway through active discussion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Openlydialectic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream coverage

This is crazy to me. Maybe you're not familiar with WP:VG, but mainstream coverage, like by a national newspaper, takes precedence over coverage by specialty news outlets. soetermans. ^↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits on Fallout 76

Hi Openlydialectic,

Two days ago I wondered if you're familiar with video game articles, now I'm wondering if you're familiar with editing guidelines in general. You've issued a stern warning to another editor for a minor uncivil edit summary, to which I've responded there. Your edits on Fallout 76 leave something to be desired. An edit like this editorializing. You have been re-adding an unnecessary CN tag to the lead. @Lordtobi: has reverted you twice, for the same thing. Per WP:BRD, if another editor reverts you, it's customary to discuss further edits. Please use talk page, instead of edit warring. soetermans. ^↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans:,

>Ask for a citation for a claim

>Get called a fanboy and asked whether I know edting guidelines

>The edit is reverted without a discussion

This is exactly why Wikipedia is failing

Openlydialectic (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Did you even read my edit? You do realize some of the claims that are stated in the lede (e.g. that critics criticized lack of human npcs) ARE NOT mentioned anywhere in the body? And they are unsourced in the lede.

*sigh* Openlydialectic, it's WP:BRD. Bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert the revert, point to talk page. So again, I'm not sure if you're willing to follow basic editing etiquette. I did read your edit, and if you believe the lead mentions something that's not in the article body, why not expand on the reception section? soetermans. ^↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was pretty sure that explicit examples of people pushing completely unsourced statements into articles should be reverted ignoring the BRD rule. Oh well, I am not invested to argue with these kinds of people. Good luck with your little article. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree that the reception is "mixed" and not negative. I believe @Bloodofox: shouldn't have reverted your edits. But there's a way of doing things on Wikipedia, and since their edits clearly were in good faith, reverting the revert was uncalled for. soetermans. ^↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Openlydialectic! You created a thread called Dynamic list numbering at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever find what you needed? I just got around to reading this. WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

What on earth do you think you are doing here? If you were a new user I'd just be giving out warning templates for such a BLP violation. These are allegations. None of it is proven and none of the allegations have been made to any sort of authority, only in the media. That does not support or justify the section heading at all.

If you did not make that edit then please accept my apologies for my tone above. If there is any possibility that your account was hacked then please change your password immediately and review any other edits made around the same time to make sure that nothing else bad was done. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal:Are you incapable of reading? I didn't add all those sentences to the article, I just added a header, taking the word from those sentences I didn't add that best describes these allegations as that header. Chill out and watch your language, otherwise I'll have to give you a warning for unfriendly behaviour & assaulting other users. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you check that diff in the message you will see that this is exactly the header I was complaining about. I also note your abuse of a warning template on my talk page. Do you want an official warning template about your behaviour? You are going on the right way to get one.

Let me be clear. To put a heading saying "Rapes" on a section about unproven allegations of sexual assault is grossly unacceptable on any biography of a living person. If you made an honest misjudement and can now see that this was a mistake then this can end here but please don't try to make out that anybody else is at fault. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am not gonna waste my time on you, so this is my last reply to you

>If you check that diff in the message you will see that this is exactly the header I was complaining about.

I put a word from the paragraph and made it a header for that paragraph. I didn't add that paragraph, if you want to go complain about someone, complain about whoever added that paragraph.

>I also note your abuse of a warning template on my talk page.

lol

>Let me be clear. To put a heading saying "Rapes" on a section about unproven allegations of sexual assault is grossly unacceptable on any biography of a living person.

No, I don't think so. In fact, I believe new readers of the article that are comming to read about that guy because of the allegations should be provided with an opportunity to jump directly to the paragraph detailing them without doing a CTRL+F search. If you dislike the particular name I chose for the paragraph - feel free to start a talk discussion about it or even rename it on your own. But you've removed it instead which really shows that the only thing you care about is protecting this *alleged* guys' legacy. Whether you do it because you are a fan or get paid for that is irrelevant, if you cared about the word and not about whether regular people would be able to quickly read about the allegations you'd have changed the word. Good luck. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here. Saying "I don't think so" does not override our actual WP:BLP policy. You still have option to drop this and move on to constructive editing elsewhere. Abusing the Welcome template on my talk page does not count as moving on. I removed it as much for your benefit as mine. I have not removed it a second time and I have replied. You could have avoided that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics Discretionary Warning (Second Notice)

Due to Openlydialectic's flagrant misconduct at the Neil deGrasse Tyson article, I was going to notify the user of the American Politics discretionary sanctions, but it appears as if someone already notified them.[2] @:Openlydialectic: Please consider this a reminder. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see any misconduct on my part, I haven't even edited the article as it's locked. Starting a vote on the talk page about restoring the allegations of sexual misconduct is most definitively is not flagrant or any other misconduct, which is why I am giving you a warning for abuse of the discretionary warning template. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs of your misconduct.[3][4][5] Please address other editor's arguments, not the editor's themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See no misconduct in them. Sorry, but I guess you'll have to deal with the fact that some editors may have opinion that are different from yours. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're falsely accusing editors of being in some cabal. To make matters worse, you're now attempting to reframe your false accusations about "conduct" to be about "content". There are two entirely different things. The great irony, although I doubt that you see it yourself, is that your last sentence is about yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: 1) Neil is not a politician, he's a scientist. The topic of sexual harrassment is not politics, it's sociology. This has nothing to do with American politics. 2) Several users going from topic to topic voting together is a sign of cabal. 3) Starting a vote isn't misconduct. If you don't like that some users have other opinions on the matter or god forbid try voicing their opinions, you have no place on Wikipedia. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) You're fooling yourself if you don't think that this doesn't have political overtones. Are you seriously suggesting that you are so naive that you've never heard of the #metoo movement? 2) Go ahead, present your evidence. 3) Yet again, you ironically are describing yourself. This has nothing to do with your opinion, but your misconduct. These are entirely different things. Do you understand that it's possible to disagree without attacking other editors? Right now, it appears as if you are the only editor who fails to understand this distinction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Are you for real? Are you trying to claim that since #metoo movement is inherently political, an American politics discretionary notice is justified because I suggested a bunch of Wikipedia users are protecting their darling - Neil degrasse Tyson? Jesus christ....
2)Evidence of what?
3) Who are you trying to fool? Anyone who reads this and then goes to the talk page of that article would immediately understand what's going on. I mean, you gave me this warning after I started an innocent VOTE whether we should put a fairly harmless mention of the sexual assault allegations in his article. You get it, people who are reading this? This user was so outraged someone would suggest their idol was imperfect that he'd start giving out warnings to users who merely started VOTES.
4)Also, I've given up on that article, if you haven't noticed, so I don't know what that last part is about. Nice job protecting your darling btw, I see the article still has no mention of the allegations. Take care.
P.S. I'll have to declare that I am not a Trump fan/right-winger/etc/etc/etc, in fact, I am an actual antifa. But how do you not feel ashamed for claiming that policies prevent allegations from getting into the main article, yet defend the Kavanaugh situation? This is just pathetic Openlydialectic (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Dear user Openlydialectic, I read the discussion on Dziubenko discussion page and I find your tone quite offensive. The phrase ″When eventually you get old enough to be able to get into a university, you'd discover that in science all claims should be properly sourced″ doesn't seem to be polite enough. Here in Wikipedia are contributing people with different English level. Please, no more bullying. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow shirt protest "purely political"

It is in fact a good faith nomination to pull a stale story about a series of protests that is petering out. Kindly request that you strike you remarks suggesting that the nomination is "purely political". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSNPC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MSNPC. Since you had some involvement with the MSNPC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian name for plasticine animation

- quite unnecessary in the English Wikipedia! Otherwise, all other articles would also have Russian versions of their name... I will revert once more and take it to the talk page. If consensus can be reached with other editors, you can re-insert the Russian name. I ask that you don't do it before consensus can be found among a larger group of editors. --Janke | Talk 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém

Mztourist has been here for ten years, not six months. I don't think they need a pointer to a "referencing for beginners" guide. Implying that they do can also be seen as a personal attack. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: No it doesn't. I am not in a habit of verifying each user's age via wikitools, and most importantly, I don't care. If a user doesn't know that unreferenced content doesn't belong on Wikipedia and tries to restore it no matter what he clearly doesn't know the rules. Farewell. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Altai Krai. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Read the edit summary before re-adding your content. Your summary does not respond to any of the points I made.

Also, using words like "poorest" or "richest", especially in the lead is considered non-NPOV. Therexbanner (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC) @Therexbanner: You should read the definition of unsourced content. You can do this here. Information that you or your employer personally don't like =/= unsourced content[reply]

Thank you, but I do not need to read anything about that, I have been an editor on Wiki (IP & then user) for over 15 years. You however clearly have no clue on how to be a good contributor, just look at your talk page, everyone has issues with your edits.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your content is "unsourced" because it is literally not in the sources you cited. I am a fluent Russian speaker, although it'd be no problem to have a 3rd party here translate them. Articles stating lowest income do not equal "poorest" in any sense of the word. Poverty is associated with low wealth not low salaries.

A person could have $0 annual income and a net worth of millions or billions of dollars and he/she would not be poor.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. >using words like "poorest" or "richest", especially in the lead is considered non-NPOV No it doesn't. Look up articles about countries ranging from North Korea and Democratic Republic of Congo to Singapore and Norway Openlydialectic (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about a country article, this should be based on standard Russian Federation subject articles. Stop your POV posts, this is your last warning before this is taken further.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section in the Talk page of the Altai Krai article, outlining my concerns in full. You are welcome to add your side of the story, and maybe we can agree on some points (ie. re-wording) if not, we can take it to RfC, whichever's best.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi, I've stumbled upon this. While many of the "citation tags" are no doubt appropriate, I think you've gone a tad bit over the top. A pointer to WP:WHYCITE might be in place here: apart from quotes or BLP content, citations are generally only required for information that is likely to be challenged. There's usually no need to insist on an inline citation after every single sentence, and it's also quite likely in this case that many of the "unreferenced" sentences you've tagged are actually based on the same source as the sentence immediately following: a reference is normally added at the end of each chunk of content that's based on it, and there's no need to repeat this reference for each sentence that this chunk might contain. – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, if we allow for uncited content to stay, who can verify that some of those sentences weren't written by a troll or someone else and thefore have nothing to do with reality? Yes, I think in theory adding citation needed tags to every uncited sentence might be too much, after it's probable that some of those sentences had a reference at the end of the paragraph, for example. It's just that the article was so poorly written and had clearly so much content that was highly dubious at best and falsified at worst when I started editing it, that I decided we'd be better off by just adding that tag to every uncited sentence. And just to be clear, I don't think that decision was in direct breach of policies or anything, WP:VERIFY clearly states that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article."

So those statements were open for removal too, I just tagged them. And yes, I admit that some of the tagged sentences may not have needed a reference (maybe some section off the geography part of the article may have been self-evident), but again I don't think that's a good reason as to out of 273 sentences in the article 206 were completely unreferenced, including sections like history or politics that were entirely or almost entirely unreferenced.

P.S. Sorry for a wall of text, English's not my first language. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, English isn't mine either :) Many of the cn tags were placed on sentences where the immediately following sentence had a reference: in this case the assumption is that the reference applies to the first sentence as well. Of course, you can still tag it, but only if you've checked the source and you've found out it doesn't support this statement. I understand that the article might be sub-par, and it's laudible that you've done something about it, but placing a cn tag after almost every single sentence is at best counter-productive: it dilutes the meaning of the tag and it erases the distinction between content that is genuinely problematic and one that simply isn't immediately followed by a blue clicky number. That's the point of the tag in the first place: to single out the content that needs work. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but given the very problematic nature of the article, my thinking was that someone with more knowledge of Laos should check the entirety of the article and that person would be then able to resolve which citation tags are superfluous and which are not. And it's true that some of the sentences with cn tags were immediately followed by sentences which had references that applied to both sentences, but by just glancing at the article about half (give or take) the paragraphs lack a reference at the end of them. Afaik the rule is that inline reference should be added at the very least at the end of paragraph, not, well, later.
Either way, we really have two options here, it's either to leave the article as it is waiting for someone to verify it's contents and remove superfluous references, or to revert my edits alltogether leaving the article with possibly a lot of clearly false/POV-type false information without any tags to signal the article even has problems. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I would be grateful if you could avoid making wild accusations about me (as you did here) unless you have some evidence to support them. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: You should probably consider investing in buying a dictionary and reading up the definition of the word accusation (or the word wild too, to that matter) Openlydialectic (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I please remark that this was an accusation, and that your reply was rude and an unnecessary personal attack. I strongly recommend you to retract the above reply (by apologizing) and to not repeat the accusations.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is a very disappointing reply. You accused me of editing with "political biases" and supplied absolutely no evidence to support it. This is unacceptable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for posterity and/or admins who may or may not come here to discuss the issue, here's the post he claims was "an accusation". MSGJ has renamed the country's article to North Macedonia (which probably says a lot about his/her political biases, seeing how it took half a year after the official renaming for the WP:Commonname to be satisfied in the case of Swaziland/eSwatini)
If you believe, that me bringing to light two completely different behaviours of yours towards to very similar events is an accusation of all things, that just serves to signal that you indeed have a political bias. Seeing how instead of discussing that behaviour of yours you continue to claim that, and I quote, I accused you without bringing any evidence, I conclude that any further discussion with you is meaningless. Farewell. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any concerns about my editing, the proper course of action would be to come and discuss with me cordially on my talk page. I note that you still have not provided any evidence of this accused political bias, except some vague mention of Swaziland/eSwatini. I have no memory of taking any action with regard to that move, but if you could provide some links I will refresh my memory. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this. Is that what you are referring to? Perhaps you could spell out any concerns you have — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ricardo Milos

The article Ricardo Milos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Briefly being the subject of a meme does not equal notability by Wikipedia standards. Google search for name brings up about 83 results, none of which discuss him in any significant way.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ricardo Milos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ricardo Milos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Milos 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. ... discospinster _talk 03:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laos

I saw your edits on Laos, and I think it's great that you're fighting vandalism there. But, you don't have to reference every sentence. I have seen articles where they just have 1 reference per paragraph, and they're fine. Now sure, some parts do need references, but you don't have to put references for every sentence. If you were to reference every sentence (or parts of a sentence), it would probably look like this.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.[1] Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.[2] Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.[3][2] Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.[4] Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium,[5] totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa,[1] quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo.[6] Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet, ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non-recusandae.[7][5]

More: If you can do it, then find references, and work on it yourself.

From America, TheSmartPersonUS1 ^(TSPUS1) (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSmartPersonUS1: I've responded to another editor who raised the issue previously here. I don't know what else I can say... If you're confident it's better to leave the article as it was, with plenty of unreferenced content that may be full of bs (or may be entirely correct and not requiring any referencing at all) you can revert my edit, I guess. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Openlydialectic: Ok, but I won't remove all of the citation needed templates. Just reminding you. TheSmartPersonUS1 ^(TSPUS1) (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Third Partition of Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]