User talk:Txantimedia

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question to Nguyễn Quốc Việt

English-language sources are preferable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I thought. Should I change his cites to the ones I had cited previously? Or discuss it with him first? Txantimedia (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should just change it back to Vennema, although the Vietnamese sources could still be kept as a back-up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would if MIG would stop reverting them every time I post them. Jezzus this is getting old. I am so sick and tired of this guy reverting my edits that I have reported him. Thanks for fixing his last revert. Txantimedia (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Txantimedia, yes English sources are preferable, but i just wanted to let you know the option for non-English refs are available at your disposal. Concerning the MiG29VC, i'll join you. You've just gotten a taste of this damn guy that we had to put up with for the past month...I don't feel secure to post my email address on a publicly-accessible site as this, unfortunately because there were concerning incidents in the past...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw "500 bodies.." in Venemma' book, i will not remove it. But "27 graves, 2,397 bodies" still need "Verify credibility". Please show me: why you can count this figures? Show me how do you counted (A grave with ... bodies + B grave with... bodies, etc). If you scan the book (or use digital camera and upload), it's the best way MiG29VN (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I con't have to show you shit. Get the damn book yourself and count them. And stop calling me a liar. Txantimedia (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MiG29VC is the only liar around here. He fabricated references altogether! He says "anything that's xxx.edu are reliable sources" - demonstrates poor understanding of what reliable sources are, and yes XXX.edu is very reliable :) He's in absolutely no position to say anything about anything. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's been blocked for two weeks now, so we can get a little rest before he starts up again. Txantimedia (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

As a brand new editor (two days) you have been vigorously reverting at Massacre at Huế, and you filed a 3RR report which is a rather advanced activity. Conceivably you are right about some of the factual issues, but your record is a bit unusual. Can you clarify whether you have had previous Wikipedia accounts? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• EdJohnston, can you remember back three years ago? Did you ever get a response? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Of course he did. I responded immediately and explained to him that I had been editing anonymously for years and decided to create an account. Also that I'm quite capable of reading and figuring out how to deal with a person who is reverting without explanation or discussion. Read the rest of my talk page. The guy was permanently banned. Are you trying to undermine me because you don't like my positions on issues? Txantimedia (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drmies and Txantimedia. Yes, for the editor's response on my talk page in April 2014 see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 32#Yes, I have had previous accounts. The 3RR report was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive243#User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 weeks). I did not have a concern that they were using multiple accounts. I was just surprised that a new user would be able to create a flawless 3RR report. There was a fairly hot dispute at Massacre at Huế during April 2014 which eventually calmed down. (One of the parties was blocked indef as a sock). EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and EdJohnston: Ed, thank you for the compliment. While I have the attention of both of you, I need your help with something. I was unaware that new articles were supposed to go through an acceptance process. I created an article, Vietnam Veterans for Factual History at the request of a friend without going through the approval process. Furthermore, I have a COI, in that I am a member of the group. I try to be as neutral and impartial as I can in every edit that I perform as well as in my edits in Talk discussions, but obviously there is no guarantee that I am or will be. Since the article is already published in mainspace, what should I do now? If I need to be disciplined, I have no problem accepting that. If you wouldn't mind, please look at the article and advise me on next steps. Txantimedia (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you need less "distinguished" and statements about speakers and what members have done (like that they published books), and more reliable, secondary sources. The club will not become notable because some of its members have articles. Take out Lewy and be more clear about what they propose--and whether it has gained any traction. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to improve the article. Txantimedia (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Txantimedia, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Txantimedia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why it can't be a coffeehouse, or frappuccino house or cà phê sữa đá house... -_- Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Riddance. No more VC!

Bon matin tout le monde, MiG-29-VC has been blocked indefinitely, and sanity has returned. Enjoy your early 39th commemorative 04/30th gift Mr Bede MiGVC :D Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, all he ever edits on Viet Wiki is "Đồng tính luyến ái". Well he better enjoy it. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His stuff will be gone now too.

Gone. Regarding the SPI, i've considered contributing but thing is he's already blocked. If something arises, i'll add to it. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Txantimedia Welcome. You may find this list helpful.

Welcome!

Hello, Txantimedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Wiki a failed project

Large swaths to Chomsky, Porter, Herman, the VC...You are aware, of all active editors on political and historical articles in Viet Wiki, ~50% publicly exhibit their communist political views and allegiance e.g. picking Russian names or Soviet weapons/tanks/plane names as a username, or displaying the "cờ đỏ sao vàng", or hammer & sickle, or Ho Cho Minh's picture or that of Lenin or Che Guevara etc. Even the admins are communist, so don't expect a free and fair environment there (and don't expect that your personal info, like IP address, will be responsibly-handled by admins and checkusers ie IPs of "dissident users" would be reported to Vietnamese police (công an)). Over 400+ accounts, about 1000 chuyên gia bút chiến (online trolls). Just curious, are you Viet? Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am a US Navy vet from that period of history (never served in Vietnam). My cousin was KIA in 1968. Thus my intense interest in the war and the lies that are told about it. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite why Porter and Chomsky shouldn't be used as sources? Their works are verifiable and reliable and shouldn't be discounted just because they don't fit a certain point of view. DHN (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already have - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#All_references_to_Porter_and_his_.22work.22_should_be_removed Porter flat out lies, repeatedly, in his articles on Hue. Chomsky simply cites Porter and repeats his lies. Both men may be reliable in other areas, but not on Hue. If you want more, I can provide it. I will be working on an article on Porter's lies about Hue in the near future. --Txantimedia (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTRS should apply to these articles, and Porter's article does not meet it by the usual criteria. Porter spent most of his career as a journalist, writing for radical publications like Ramparts. (Porter also said the Khmer Rouge killed a few hundred. Should that be included in Khmer Rouge per WP:V and WP:NPOV, or would that be WP:FRINGE?) Chomsky's a linguist, not an expert on Indochina or a historian, and his analysis is often quite different in focus from that of a neutral source. To the extent the conclusions of Porter and Chomsky have been accepted by some Vietnam scholars, such as Marilyn Young, they are still included in the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Mark Moyar Headshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mark Moyar Headshot.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Mark Moyar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mark Moyar.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Txantimedia. 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)[reply]

Far right/left

I noticed your discussion and thought I would let you know you might find most of your useful arguments at WP:Blp since I'm not ready to participate in the conversation myself. Be prepared to accept that a valid counter argument to BLP is that if sufficient multiple RS support the terms, then they CAN be added, but your defense to that is that they don't HAVE to be added since a BLP is involved. Best of luck. Huggums537 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huggums537:, thanks for your input. I've already begun a conversation at WP:RSN, which led to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Txantimedia (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note....

Please be aware there are two sets of DS on the Roy Moore article...you might also want to review this AE case. Happy editing! ^Atsme📞📧 19:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: What is a DS? I'm fairly new at all this administrative stuff. Txantimedia (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions impose certain restrictions on articles. In the case of Roy Moore, there are 2 different DS involved such as this one, and at the top of the article Talk Page (TP), you will see WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES in the TP header. Click on the links for the explanations. Hope that helps. ^Atsme📞📧 21:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:, did I do something wrong? Txantimedia (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge...and not at all why I'm here. I just don't want you to be at a disadvantage by not knowing DS exits on whatever article you might be editing - now you know how to check and see if any are in place. Usually, someone adds a template to a user's TP reminding them that DS are in place - it's just an advisory so read the template to be sure. DS can be quite tricky if you're not paying close attention - they usually show-up in edit view and on the TP of the article. If you wander too close to the "DS quicksand", I'm sure another editor will let you know before you venture too far. I just wanted you to be aware so you could avoid those pitfalls. Please carry on as you have been...and happy editing!! ^Atsme📞📧 21:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have made mostly grammar and spelling edits on the Roy Moore pages. Most of my contributions have been on the talk pages. Txantimedia (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dr. Robert F. Turner.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Robert F. Turner.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.vvfh.org/33-research/books/book-authors/34-bob-turner.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vietnam Veterans for Factual History for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vietnam Veterans for Factual History 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/Vietnam Veterans for Factual History until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moore

You have restored "older" twice today. That's a violation of WP:1RR. Please undo it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not violating. User:Signedzzz is. The use of the word older was arrived at by consensus. (See Talk archive 5). Signedzzz then came in and removed it. I have asked him to stop doing that and to engage other editors in talk if he disagrees with the consensus. Perhaps we need to get an admin involved. Txantimedia (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. You have violated 1RR. If you don't sort it out, you'll end up at a noticeboard. If you'd like to make a case re someone else's violation, go ahead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reporting Signedzzz on the noticeboard. He has reverted three times. All I was doing was trying to restore the text agreed upon by consensus. I've engaged him on his talk page, and he has ignored me. He reverted my last revert and added fuck off to his note. What do you suggest that I do? Txantimedia (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity I reverted my revert. User:Signedzzz somehow managed to "disappear" his revert where he told me to fuck off. This is all way above my head. I was simply trying to restore the agreed upon version. Txantimedia (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Txantimedia, you might want to withdraw your ANEW report. It looks to me as if signedzzz removed the word "older" only twice, and the edits were separated by more than 24 hours.[1] The other edit you are talking about - the one where he told you to fuck off - was on his talk page, when he deleted a comment from you. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he removed it three times. Originally, on Dec 1, which I reverted and asked him on his talk page to discuss before reverting again. Then, he reverted twice on Dec 3 and then accused me of 1RR. Then I got called out by an admin, but nothing has been said to him, AFAIK. So, I will leave it in place and let admins decide whether his behavior was acceptable. Txantimedia (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with the PITA.🎖 Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been fun, trust me. Txantimedia (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the article history:

16:30, 3 December 2017‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (137,508 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎top: "older" is unclear (and unsourced), useful only as WEASEL) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

00:59, 2 December 2017‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (137,361 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎top: unclear) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

Those are the only two edits that zzz has made to the article in December and they are clearly more than 24 hours apart. You seem to think talk page edits count. They don't.

I agree with MelanieN. There is no 1RR violation on this article and you would be wise to withdraw the report. If you want to report zzz for lack of civility, you can do that. But 1RR is a non-starter. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lard Almighty: So how do I report him for lack of civility? And how do I withdraw the report?Txantimedia (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To withdraw the report, you could simply go to the report and say something like "I am withdrawing this report because..." and whatever reason you want, such as "because I misunderstood the 1RR requirement" or simply "on the basis of advice at my talk page". To report incivility, of course you could - probably at ANI - but it might not go anywhere. I am sorry to say that standards have declined here to the point where it is no longer regarded as uncivil if you tell someone at your talk page to "fuck off" - or at least not uncivil enough to take action. My impression is that "fuck you" is still regarded as actionably uncivil, but "fuck off" is not. Especially when one says it on one's talk page while deleting a comment, it seems to be taken as just a particularly rude way of saying "stay off my talk page". I disagree with this erosion of standards and regret it, but that's my observation of current practice. I am only telling you this because I would hate to see you file a second complaint against him if it is going to be futile. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have given you exactly the advice that MelanieN has given you. He has been reminded to be more civil and I would leave it at that. Any report would at most result in an admin dropping by his talk page with a similar reminder. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right that it's disappointing. I did everything I could to engage him in discussion, and all he did was ignore me and then insult me. I guess I'll just stay away from controversial pages and let the jerks fight it out. MelanieN has been the voice of reason on the Roy Moore page, but the jostling for position and constant battling is wearying. I'll go write something on the complaint and be done with him, hopefully. Txantimedia (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very frustrating to deal with people who will not engage and then when they do they become aggressive. Eventually that kind of behaviour catches up with people. zzz has been blocked before for edit-warring. Sometimes it's best just to take the higher road and move on knowing that eventually if an editor persistently breaks the rules and guidelines they will be dealt with. I have seen many editors eventually blocked indefinitely once a pattern of behaviour has been established. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at my talk page, you can see that I've dealt with this sort of thing before. It's tiring and exasperating, and it discourages me from editing at all. The process of reporting someone is so cumbersome, it's almost not worth the effort, yet one has to, or the jerks will rule the roost. Txantimedia (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Txantimedia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Dr. James S. Robbins.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. James S. Robbins.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up when I uploaded it. This file may be deleted. It's been replaced with this one: File:Dr.JamesSRobbins.jpg, which has the appropriate free use copyright. Txantimedia (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've tagged the file as a duplicate of the Commons file you uploaded with the corrected licensing information. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find the image upload form very confusing, but I think I have the hang of it now. Txantimedia (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William L Stearman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wichita (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) 20:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ho Chi Minh

The article Ho Chi Minh you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ho Chi Minh for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert F. Turner has been accepted

Robert F. Turner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Txantimedia. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us about your experiences editing Wikipedia

Hi Txantimedia!

I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.

This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the Ho Chi Minh article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.

If you are 18 years or older, I would love to have you participate. Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.

Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.

If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.

via Email: [e-mail] or English Wikipedia: tbipat

Tbipat (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nathan Alexander Stedman (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TTP1233 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nathan Alexander Stedman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nathan Alexander Stedman, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jyoti Roy (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand which sources are not up to Wikipedia standards?

70.121.63.82 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nathan Alexander Stedman has been accepted

Nathan Alexander Stedman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Are you satisfied with submission results? Ping me when you answer--Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I'm satisfied. I read about the backlog of articles and was pleasantly surprised when you got to this one so quickly. To have it approved so quickly is wonderful. I may create some others in the future. I'm doing genealogical research in North Carolina and have found several people who really deserve to have Wikipedia pages. @TTP1233: Txantimedia (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, keep editing Wikipedia. :) --Jyoti Roy (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Willis White has been accepted

Thomas Willis White, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Thornton Whitsett moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, William Thornton Whitsett, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 20:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Thornton Whitsett has been accepted

William Thornton Whitsett, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Owen Stedman (March 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Modussiccandi was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Owen Stedman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:James Owen Stedman, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Modussiccandi (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edward Kuhn, Sr. (April 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edward Kuhn, Sr. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Edward Kuhn, Sr., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James "Soup" Perkins has been accepted

James "Soup" Perkins, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Jackson Stedman has been accepted

Andrew Jackson Stedman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gusfriend (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Txantimedia

Thank you for creating Andrew Jackson Stedman.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:James Owen Stedman

Hello, Txantimedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James Owen Stedman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:James Owen Stedman

Hello, Txantimedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James Owen Stedman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^Read! Talk! 19:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edward Kuhn, Sr. (October 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edward Kuhn, Sr. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Edward Kuhn, Sr.

Hello, Txantimedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Edward Kuhn, Sr., a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"FormalDude" seems determined to frame the article "rich men north of richmond" as a right wing song. Whereas the author specifically said in a video that he is in the centrum of the political spectrum and the song is attacking all politicians. Just like you, I edited the article with a valid source to remove the framing and got deleted moments later by "FormalDude".

sad :( 155.4.221.80 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not the subject's own word. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]