User talk:Santamoly

Adams on Mahomet & Koran

Thanks for your note. I've replied on the article talk page. Please see Talk:John Quincy Adams#Adams on Mahomet & Koran. Will Beback talk 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki vs CU

I have requested outside comments on this dispute, as it will otherwise go on for ever. I don't know how you found the video, any other possible sources out there? ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exsite Webware (software)

Restored, it looks like there was a version mismatch - I didn't see a keepon tag on the page -- Tawker (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's hangon - see Template:Hang on, no worries, welcome to Wiki! -- Tawker (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Gina Jordan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

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!

DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it would help to have some specific documentation for the facts of her life, but it seemed OK to me. If you have more references, please add them. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ball

FYI

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O mio babbino caro

Hi. Yes, Evancho is very notable, but hundreds of notable singers have sung and recorded this song. They need not be listed in the article about the song unless, say, they released a single of it that went to #1. Note that the article does specifically mention that crossover singers have sung the song. The number is certainly one of Evancho's signature numbers, but come back to me in 10 years, and we'll re-evaluate if Evancho is one of the all-time most famous singers of the number like Maria Callas, who isn't even mentioned in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance on Elvis related articles

I have checked some archived conversations on the article, Elvis Presley,[1] concerning User:Onefortyone, with his same "Elvis died - on toilet" theories. Can you consider having opinion on these two articles, where he continued to add this? They are Graceland and Toilet-related injuries and deaths, discussions at Talk:Graceland#Issues and Talk:Toilet-related injuries and deaths#Issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelse (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lingua franca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Pokémon Go shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please cease adding this content back to the article. Multiple editors have removed it due to prior talk page discussions, and editors have pointed out the talk page and WP:BRD to you. Discuss it on the talk page, stop reverting it back into the article. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nissan Micra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Automatic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exsite Webware (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GeneralizationsAreBad was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Exsite Webware and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GAB^gab 00:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Santamoly, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GAB^gab 00:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me on my talk page. While I understand that the criteria for sourcing are somewhat looser, I would still appreciate seeing more than just the sourceforge cite, which did not seem like adequate sourcing to me. Adding some other credible, in-depth sources would be helpful if another reviewer comes along. Best, GAB^gab 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Pokémon Go are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santamoly,

You need to understand that we need several, in-depth reliable sources to be incorporated into the article. Oliver Stone is a film director. He would be a reliable source when it comes to film techniques. A good reliable source would be a newspaper or a news website, like The Times, The Wall Street Journal or CNN. Technology websites like CNET or The Verge would be a good one too. Otherwise there are reliable video game sources, like Game Informer, Gamasutra or Kotaku. If you can't find these, please stop starting new discussions about a CIA involvement in Pokémon Go. I don't think any editor is "nervous" about it, just skeptic about the whole thing. It is detrimental to Wikipedia, and it only takes up our time. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk Page is about improving the article, but deletion of this topic actually detracts from the quality of the article since the CIA question is widely discussed in current news, by notable sources and famous people. When the topic is buttoned up as some are trying to do, it stifles discussion of a most interesting facet of the game. It's better to leave this content in the main article without trying to shut it down since the topic has legs. Santamoly (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion in one place, shall we? I try to keep an eye out on talk pages I've responded at. Otherwise you can use {{ping}}, like {{ping|Soetermans}} and I will get a notification.

It is not "widely discussed in current news, by notable sources and famous people". If it was, how come you can't find the sources to back it up? Did you read WP:RS? Please see WP:WEIGHT too. A insignificant minority view of a subject isn't automatically part of its article. Talk pages are intended to discuss possible changed and improvements to the article, but no other editor is agreeing with you, so the topic doesn't have legs either. So unless you can find reliable sources, please do not start another pointless discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents, probably best to drop the CIA thing for the time being. Even if it were true, it would take time for something like that to get broad coverage in big name sources. If/when that happens the discussion can always be revisited. But right now I think you're hurting your case a little bit by reopening the discussion over and over. There is WP:NODEADLINE, but it's good that you're keeping an eye out for sources. The New York sex offender thing may be a good catch. We'll see what everyone else thinks. TimothyJosephWood 10:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barging in by Sinebot

   I'm sorry to arrive here and find you apparently blocked, but hope the underlying dispute can be resolved and you'll be back. My guess is that you can still reply to me on either of our talk pages. (Yours would [obviously?] be smoother, but that convention is not one of the many things i'm compulsive about; i'll check in, decreasingly often, for a while even if you haven't pinged me.)
   I often look at old-but-unarchived talk pages of article pgs, adding missing sigs and annotating multi-edit/single-time-stamp contribs (feel welcome to ask why), and ran across the expression of yours that i adapted for this talk-secn's title. If i didn't fuddle my estimate, you had abt 350 or 400 edits under your belt when you used the expr'n in yr edit summary re Spanish Inquisition (hmm, do we cover the MPython sketch, and link to it from the Dab page?), so it's not obvious you'd had by then a fair chance to figure it out, nor obvious that you'll've figured it out by now, so i'll ask: do you understand why the multi-save/single-sig method is problematic, and that the sandbox solution has numerous advantages?
   Let's discuss, at your convenience. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 06:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what any of this (e.g. "multi-save/single-sig method") is about. Nor how the Inquisition entered the conversation. But I do enjoy re-runs of Monty Python on YouTube. So if you can explain, I'd be thankful Santamoly (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then in a sense all is as it shd be, since "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Is the recurring Python punchline, with details available via the SI Dab page. But...
Yrs ago you edited the tk pg for the medieval SI with several saves but either replacing the timestamp with each edit, or waiting 'til you were done before signing; you replaced at least one User:Signbot sig with a later sig, muddying or rather camoflaging the history of your talk-page edits for that article. And barging was yr term for Signbot doing its job. You'll be reminded if you go look.
--Jerzy•t 12:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was that within the last 10 years? I have no idea how to find such a long-ago item without digging through 1000+ entries line-by-line. My memory doesn't quite go back that far! Even if I found the item, I wouldn't know what to do with it with respect to the concerns expressed. Is it important so many years later? Santamoly (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Santamoly. 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]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Santamoly. 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]

Your draft article, Draft:Exsite Webware

Hello, Santamoly. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Exsite Webware".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your addition to Draft:Exsite Webware has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Exsite Webware concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Exsite Webware, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Exsite Webware

Hello, Santamoly. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Exsite Webware".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Santamoly. 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]

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As your editing emphasis at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is closely related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and the related, documented attempts at manipulation of Wikipedia using falsified sources, it's best that you be aware of these arbitration restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crimea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimean Bridge (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) 09:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request

This is to inform you that I opened a request conserning your recent edits. The request is here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing anything relating to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted

You have been sanctioned further to the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) request filed on 19 September 2018

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. AGK [•] 16:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political Censorship

It appears from the above notice that I'm being subject to political censorship by "involved administrators". This particular admin sees any discussion of the Sukhoi Su-25 airplane (made in the Georgia SSR) as a "Ukrainian topic", and I've been banned from editing by what is called a "permanent topic ban, broadly interpreted". It appears that clever Ukrainian partisans have found that they can control content by requesting "permanent topic bans", This is also known as "political censorship" since it's a simple disagreement, brought under a "permanent topic ban, broadly interpreted" for convenience of managing censorship.

AE appeal declined

Your appeal against your Eastern European topic ban has been declined (see [2]). Best, --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third AE appeal declined

Your appeal at AE was declined (see [3]). You are also additionally banned from appealing the topic ban for a period of one year. You may appeal at WP:ARCA but, and this is only a suggestion, you should consider waiting because, given the wide range of admin support for both bans, the appeal is unlikely to be accepted. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: This posting made by Santamoly at 05:40 on 28 September 2018 is in breach of his/her topic ban. A topic ban includes discussions or suggestions about the banned topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your topic breach. The Caucasus region is on the border of Eastern Europe and Asia. The countries in the Caucasus are included in the Council of Europe and the European Broadcasting Area. So I think it is safe to say that they are part of "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Wikipedia

After one year of being "Topic Banned" on Wikipedia for discussing the performance characteristics of the Su-25 airplane, I'm guessing that it's OK to discuss the matter of how these topic bans are a form of censorship. The ban was initially implemented on the basis that the Su-25 airplane was "eastern European" in manufacture, and an editor could be banned since it's permissible to ban editors who discuss eastern European topics in an undesirable manner. However the Su-25 was manufactured in Georgia, opening the possibility that it's not actually "eastern European". So (as the reader can see above) the ban was extended by stretching the definition of "eastern European". It became "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Thus, by stretching definitions, censorship of discussions (in this case, aircraft performance), can be implemented in a hurry when needed.Santamoly (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban is indefinite. The above is a violation of the topic ban, so I suggest that you retract it. If you want to appeal your ban, you should do so at the administrator's noticeboard. It's not a good idea to do what you've done above immediately before doing so - reviewers will expect a clean record. Acroterion (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to use up everyone's energy with appeals if the results are pre-ordained. I accept that I'm banned from Wikipedia because it appears anything can be included in a topic ban that is "broadly interpreted". For example, you have instantly extended the topic ban here and now to include "censorship". I'm not interested in appealing the topic ban because I know how it will go. I accept that you have a job to do, and there's nothing I can do about it. But I'm still, with others elsewhere, following the matter of how admins can implement censorship by extending topic bans. It's always useful to understand that (on Wikipedia) there are topics that may not be discussed - ever. After 15 years of editing on Wikipedia, I wasn't aware of this dark side of Wikipedia until I got involved in the subject of aircraft performance standards. In a nutshell, it's useful for others to know about censorship on Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only place you're allowed to discuss your topic ban is in an appeal. Not here. Acroterion (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read over my edit you'll see that I'm not actually discussing the "topic ban". It's simply mentioned as background. We could be fussing over meat pies. I'm discussing the self-appointed censors who try to control old and experienced editors like myself. I have no idea who you are, nor where you come from, nor even if you are a legitimate agent of Wikipedia. All I know is that your immediate task is to prowl about the place intimidating other editors into silence when the discussion touches forbidden subject areas. I'm still not sure what the banned topic is. It doesn't make much sense because whoever would have thought that engineering formulae, like meat pies, are politically sensitive? It's the mysterious arbitrariness of the Wikipedia censorship process that interests me now. And, of course, the existence of the apparently self-appointed watchers like yourself, with all due respect, who lurk in the shadows carrying their "broadly interpreted" night-sticks. Santamoly (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may also discuss your topic ban and its breadth with the administrator who imposed it. Otherwise, not here or anywhere else. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: I am not discussing the topic ban, I'm discussing censorship using the "broadly interpreted" method. But thank you for your vigilance. This discussion (which I'm sharing with my colleagues) helps other academics to understand how Wikipedia deals with awkward topics, and it clarifies the limitations of Wikipedia as an information resource. Santamoly (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exsite Webware (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lapablo was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Exsite Webware 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:Exsite Webware, 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, 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.

Lapablo (talk) 11:38, 2 September 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Vladimir Putin, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.--Renat (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: I just noticed, that Santamoly was topic banned from anything related to Eastern Europe. Is he still topic banned? Because he added original research to the article Vladimir Putin. And the article is related to Eastern Europe.--Renat (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban is indefinite as seen here at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Since I was involved in the original events that led to the sanction (and therefore had no part in its imposition), I will take no action, except to remind Santamoly that the restriction still exists and may be enforced if topic ban violations recur. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the info.--Renat (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has been going on for some time, and is not a one-off mistake. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's why I raised this question.--Renat (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for persistent topic ban violations, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Editing after Block

I've been blocked for several years (by yourself as admin) from editing anything to do with "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Now this "broadly interpreted" means that I'm continually uncertain of what I can edit, and what is censored. For example, I was blocked from editing the Periodic Table because Mendeleev might be "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I'm also under threat for editing aircraft concerning some Asian aircraft engineering topics because they might be "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Some Boeing aircraft ("Western") have titanium parts from Asia which is sometimes "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I have some contributions that need fixing (source links, etc) that I'd like to fix, and some vaccination data and financial data that needs fixing. Since some topics are world-wide, occasionally someone will flag them as "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted", as you have done.

In the past, you have commented that even asking this question is an offense against the ban. Regardless, Wikipedia still needs edits.

Can you suggest a best procedure to continue editing under these hazy lifetime restrictions? Should I ask permission for each edit, or should I take a chance like I did recently, but got banned for 2 weeks again. I'm not wanting to be a nuisance, but teaching and learning continues, even in the presence of strict censorship. Thanks!Santamoly (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about a broad area is probably the easiest. For example, I would not have issues with Boeing does not matter where the details are made, but if this suddenly evolves into a discussion how the details made in Easter Europe are better or worse than the others it is probably your topic ban violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Santamoly. Thank you. --Renat 16:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failing to abide by your topic ban and giving admins to reason to think that you are going to abide by it.

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 ~~~~}}. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests and discussion

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure how this works, so I'm hoping that someone can help untangle this puzzle. Some editors keep complaining that I'm disregarding blocking rules, but others say there is no problem since my edits are ordinary and uncomplicated. My question is,"What am I doing that is making other editors so excited to block my edits?" For example, the Mikulin AM-38 article contains the statement "The diameter of the GCS impeller was also reduced and its compression ration was lowered" This is not correct. It is the compression ratio that was lowered. Some folks say it's OK to make these edits, but others say I should be blocked indefinitely for making edits like this. I'm not clear, and don't see any reason to block my simple edits. Others say my edits about Boeing are acceptable, but others say I can't mention Boeing's use of titanium forgings. I'd like to request unblocking for the simple reason that all this energy spent on discussing my blocks just uses up huge amounts of time and energy for no particular benefit to Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As of 21 September 2018, you are not permitted to edit anything relating to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. You are perfectly well aware of this, having discussed it repeatedly here on this talk page. So, you are not permitted to edit about Eastern Europe or anything related to Eastern Europe. What are you doing that is making other editors so excited to block your edits? Simple, you are editing about Eastern Europe (broadly construed). Repeatedly, over and over again. Other users who are not subject to this topic ban may write about these topics, but you must not. For example, you are not permitted to write about the T-72, which is a Soviet tank. You are not permitted to write about the Russian military organisation, Wagner Group. You are not permitted to write about the Soviet aircraft, the Il-103. All of these are violations of your topic ban. All of these are related to Eastern Europe. You are topic banned from writing about Eastern Europe. I'm... legitimately unsure what the problem is here? Which part is confusing? I'm asking this honestly. You don't seem to think writing about Eastern Europe or related topics is a problem, but it is. You know it is, you know you aren't permitted to write about these topics. Have I missed something here? Yamla (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry that I have no idea what is the reason for being blocked. I've been a successful and useful contributor to Wikipedia for almost 20 years, but became blocked for some unknown reason 4 or 5 years ago. The best reason offered for being blocked is "editing while blocked". But since the original block reason is unknown, the entire block reason continues to be a mystery. There may be a reason somewhere, but nobody has said what it is. It could be a type of Wikipedia censorship but, to be honest, nobody knows - especially me. I'd like to request unblocking to be able to continue contributing usefully. But I'm unable to add much more than that since nobody really knows what the blocking was all about (other than "editing while blocked" consisting of small spelling corrections, etc, which I assumed were OK). Santamoly (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't seem to be understanding what we are telling you. You are blocked for violating your topic ban from editing about Eastern Europe. You don't address that in this request. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Interesting. But I haven't been editing about "Eastern Europe". That's the mystery in all this. Various Admins (unfamiliar with the ban) pop up to say this, but it's not so. That's why I'm puzzled. One said I've been editing about Soviet Union aircraft - but I haven't. Another said I've been editing about a Russian private military contractor - but such an entity doesn't exist. So I boldly corrected a spelling error in this article about a non-existent group. Again, this appeared to be OK with one admin that I asked directly. Another commented that I'd edited an article on a "Soviet" tank (T-72), but I see that this tank was "Iraqi-assembled T-72", not Soviet. None of these edits are in violation of my topic ban regarding articles about "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Nobody has ever complained or objected to anything I've ever edited. Now the biggest puzzle for me is that I have asked if it's OK to make these edits, and an Admin YMblanter said he has no problem with these edits.

Now Admin Yamla above says "you know you aren't permitted to write about these topics", but this isn't so. I have asked and was OK'd. So who is telling the truth? It doesn't make sense to be banned for correcting spelling errors (which seems correct to Admin Yamla). So why was I banned in the first place? Can anybody tell me? Santamoly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban discussion is in your topic ban notice on this page, and always has been [4].None of this should be a mystery to you. T-72s are a product of Eastern Europe, as are Il-103s.TheWagner Group is a Russian paramilitary organization. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - which doesn't really answer the questions. The T-72 is nothing to do with Eastern Europe. Wikipedia says the Russian factory was "located 25 kilometers east of the virtual border between Europe and Asia". In other words, it was made in Asia. The T-72 in question was an Iraqi copy. Wikipedia says "The Iraqis called their T-72 copies the "Lion of Babylon" (Asad Babil". In other words, they're nothing to do with Eastern Europe. So please tell me why you are saying it's a product of "Eastern Europe" when clearly it's not. The Il-103 is an American-certified plane made in Hungary which is part of the European Community. What does this have to do with "Eastern Europe"? And the Wagner Group clearly doesn't exist at all, so perhaps I crossed the line of permissible edits, but it's not a significant error since it was a simple grammar fix to an article about a fictitious group. I can accept this was a mistake. Are these worth a lifetime ban? Especially since the other spelling/grammar fixes appear to be permitted (I asked permission). Santamoly (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadly construed" means that that kind of hair-splitting won't get you much sympathy. "Lifetime bans" are rarely imposed, most editors are extended the standard offerof possible reinstatement of editing privileges with the passage of time and a recognition that their behavior must meet expectations.Right now, with the continued obfuscation about tank plant locations and such, that second part seems like a high hill to climb.Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Edit help needed

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request (I'm leaving the note below intact but please note that it may be construed as a violation of your block). RegentsPark (comment) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can anyone help me with edits? I'm permanently blocked, but I still have some outside respect for my 20 years of useful Wikipedia editing and article creation. Today I noticed that the article for Nakhodka has the following error: "Annual turnover tops 13.1 billion rubles (over US$400,400)" That should likely be be "US$200,000,000" if using the American billion units.

If someone could make that correction, we'd all appreciate it! Thanks :-) Santamoly (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for help with house-keeping edits. Can anyone help with this? It's my understanding that my edits were permitted, but then they became "not permitted". Can't say I understand what's going on. Thanks for looking into this. Santamoly (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]