User talk:Callitropsis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2016 Seattle Seahawks Season

Hi @SamX:

I don't know how involved you are on the 2016 Seattle Seahawks season page but it seems like right now you're the second most active user.

I added free agency signings and departures(players cut/waived) but I left it commented out. If you care to look through it quickly that would be cool because there was a little bit I wasn't sure how to approach. How it stands I have the signings and departures from after the super bowl but I wasn't sure if it should instead be after the official start of the new season, March 9th.

If you think it looks good, or if you make changes, you can take the <!-– and –-> out. If you don't care to look over it or are too busy I'll remove them on Monday.
Thanks, Briscut (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Denver Broncos season lists signings that predate the start of free agency, so I think it's fair to include transactions that took place before free agency. Thank you. --SamX 14:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Cincinnati Bengals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FirstEnergy Stadium. 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) 10:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Seattle Seahawks season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eric Reid and Doug Baldwin. 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) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

CAT:LINKROT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CAT:LINKROT. Since you had some involvement with the CAT:LINKROT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SamX. 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hortal release poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hortal release poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SamX. 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)

Weird

Just saw on the filter log an IP trying to blank your talk page and I see it also created a talk archive. If this was you, you somehow edited while logged out. Just found it unusual. Home Lander (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that was me. Thanks for the heads-up, though. --SamX 01:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Home Lander (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, thanks a bunch! Now I'll request oversight, finish archiving my talk page, and crawl into a hole out of embarrassment. --SamX 01:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Be sure to mention to them that it tripped the filter log for your talk page, so it appears there too. Home Lander (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SamX. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World record progression 400 metres freestyle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zhang Lin and James Guy (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) 07:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World record progression 100 metres backstroke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhao Jing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World record progression 50 metres freestyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vladimir Morozov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World record progression 4 × 100 metres freestyle relay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wu Qingfeng.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:SamX/Sandbox2

Hello, SamX. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:SamX/Sandbox2, 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) 14:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcomeen-vi/doc

Template:Welcomeen-vi/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Banyan Tree Holdings

Hello @SamX,

I represent Banyan Tree Group publicity team and I wanted to update the page which has some areas that needs info and factual correction.

The main content has been about the Banyan Tree and Angsana, the two original brands. However last year, the company has announced brand extensions, which now operates 10 brands. So I was trying to associate the relevant websites, given Banyan Tree and Angsana website was already in the list, I was simply adding the link to the other brands. i also need to edit the total properties, which is now 64, but on Wiki it is 55 which is outdated.

Please let me know if I can clarify further.

Thank you BanyanTreeGroup (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@BanyanTreeGroup: Thanks for reaching out! Wikipedia is not a directory or link farm, so I reverted your additions of the links in question. Editing articles that you have a strong conflict of interest with is also generally not allowed. If there's changes you want to be made to the article in question, you should make an edit request on the article's talk page instead. Our conflict of interest guide summarizes the relevant policies nicely.

Your username also implies shared use, which isn't allowed for several reasons. If you plan on continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, I recommend that you request a username change.

Thanks! --SamX 07:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wise mystical tree" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wise mystical tree and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9 § Wise mystical tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

My talk page

How can we get my talk page protected ASAP as well as get that dolt of an IP blocked? He has been reported, and I have already requested page protection... ugh. I hope an admin gets to it soon. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: I'm not sure if there's really much that can be done. Adding a note to the AIV report would probably get your talk page protected more quickly, at the very least. — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Did that too.... O.O — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose all that's left to do is hunker down for the next few minutes and spam that rollback button :/ — SamX [talk • contribs] 05:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Royal enfield

I had a 22’ re Himalayan. Had turn signal assemblies (5) that fell apart completely in their housing and a clutch that shut the bike off at random intervals, all within 1200 miles. I know what i am talking about, called re 10 times and went to the dealership many times to get it fixed. Is this a impartial forum or for fanboys of the company with biased opinions? 2601:1C0:C802:1B40:A5AE:A7:588:2226 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for reaching out! Unfortunately, your experience constitutes original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must cite reliable sources, especially regarding potentially controversial statements that are likely to be challenged. If you can find one that supports your assertion, feel free to add it to the article. Alternatively, I'd be happy to add it myself if you can send me a link or something. Thanks! — SamX [talk • contribs] 19:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for a compassionate, well-reasoned comment on what is shaping up to be one of the most difficult, emotional ArbCom cases the community has ever had. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! :) I debated whether or not to even post anything because a) I really don't have any stake in this, b) I generally try not to comment on behind-the-scenes drama, and c) I haven't even had time to read the linked article. (GIS is a lot of work!) I decided to post because it seemed like not many people were discussing the real-world implications of this case beyond injuries to Wikipedia's reputation as an impartial source, in addition to the actions of a certain banned user. This is understandable, since Wikipedians form an insular, mostly anonymous community with arcane customs and idiosyncracies that's little-known to the general public. This makes it very easy to forget that Wikipedia is in the real world, and that what we do here has very real consequences, whether we're aware of them or not. I try to remind myself of this whenever I edit. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice work reporting all the "Bbb23 exposed" vandals–as I sit and watch as the AIV backlog grows and grows–even if it's past midnight! Tails Wx 05:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It's the easiest, most boring thing I've done all week. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reporting 37 IPs...I do agree! Tails Wx 05:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen this many entries at AIV. I suppose I could've just reported the ranges, but oh well... — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. 40 reports...something should be done at this point. Are admins at 12:15AM EST awake when this is English Wikipedia? I do see a few but I'm not sure if they're checking the noticeboards! Tails Wx 05:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to have stopped for the time being, so I suppose it isn't really as urgent anymore. At this point I'm mostly concerned about their potential status as open proxies, and annoyed that I could've been doing homework instead of dealing with this nonsense. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned about their timing, since they can come back anytime, or maybe they're just taking a short break and they'll come back when they think we're offline, or they think we are...It's getting late, I might as well head to bed very soon, so they'll catch me off-guard first!...but they'll probably not recognize me as I haven't reported any of the vandals. And yes, homework is better than dealing with lots of IP vandals! Tails Wx 05:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, Materialscientist has dealt with the IP vandals! Tails Wx 13:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on Conjecture

Hello, SamX, and congratulations on your recent promotion. You seem to be a person that chooses your words carefully enough, a good trait. Seeing as you reverted a change that I made, I'd like to pick your brain in good faith, if you'd care to respond.

In recent years on Wikipedia, I have seen an increasing number of articles changed, charged with contemporary cultural and political rhetoric, which worries me very much. Rather than sticking to relevant and utilitarian information, some will inject upsetting conjecture into otherwise well written works.

Written in the Wikipedia encyclopedic style, these edits have the veneer of impartiality without the sauce. Think about a dog, editing the "cats" page to add a section about their viruses (all of which are contagious to humans!), under the heading "Health". Unfortunately (and luckily) these edits seem to only hit articles of contemporary issue.

I would like very much for Wikipedia to continue to be a useful and entertaining tool, but the more I see these sections, the more I head to other websites.

You have been here a long while, and have been imbued with new power. What do you think about what I have said? Eyemotions (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eyemotions: Thanks for reaching out, and welcome to Wikipedia! I unfortunately don't have time to compose a thoughtful, well-worded response to your question, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can. In the meantime, feel free to check out Help:Introduction, if you feel so inclined. Wikipedia can be confusing to newcomers and difficult to navigate at times, and the link I've provided is a decent overview of some of the core principles that Wikipedia follows, and has some useful information about how editing works. The Teahouse is also a great place to ask questions, and a good resource for new editors. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eyemotions: Before I get into the heart of this reply, I'd like to clarify that getting the reviewer permission wasn't really a promotion. Being a pending changes reviewer isn't an endorsement of my aptitude as an editor, and it's not a badge of honor or anything like that. It simply means I've read and understand some of Wikipedia's core policies, and I'm willing and able to review edits by new users to pages with pending changes protection, such as the one you made. It's really more of a tool than a job title.

Judging by your message, your perceptions of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia's scope and purpose are, broadly speaking, correct. Verifiability and no original research are core content policies here and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which many inexperienced editors don't realize. Content must be written from a neutral point of view and supported by reliable sources. With that being said, Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of what has been published in reliable sources. It also isn't a paper encyclopedia, and therefore isn't limited by constraints limited by the print format. Articles can and should give due weight to any and all widely accepted facts or opinions about any given topic that are documented by reliable sources, with some exceptions.

For example, Wikipedia's article on JK Rowling, which has been identified as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, details the controversies that have arisen from her remarks about transgender people. It isn't bare-bones biographical information, but it's been extensively covered by reliable sources, so Wikipedia can and should include information about said controversies. However, she's more well-known for her work as an author, which is accordingly given more attention in the article about her. Inserting a long paragraph about her views on the LGBT community right at the start of the article would constitute undue weight, and would violate Wikipedia policy.

Similarly, the under-representation of women and minorities in congress is a well-documented historical phenomenon that is supported by reliable sources. Of course, that doesn't mean that content is set in stone. The paragraph that you removed, while encyclopedic, could be supported by more inline citations to reliable sources. You could also start a discussion on the article's talk page if you think the section should be altered, trimmed, or moved to another part of the article. Since it's a pretty high-profile article, any comments posted to the talk page would would likely get attention from other editors.

I hope that was helpful. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have, although I'm pretty busy with college courses right now and probably wouldn't be able to get back to you very quickly. You'd probably get a quicker response at the Teahouse, which is a venue specifically dedicated to answering questions from new editors. Again, thanks for reaching out! — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for YOU!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hey there SamX! I've seen your hard work in the community with reverting anti-vandalism, and I'd like to give you a barnstar for that. Keep it up! / Best regards, RemoveRedSky / (u) (t) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello SamX,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Samx

correct mw CAHDI Party1 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@CAHDI Party1: I'm not sure what you're asking me. Could you please be more specific?

Also, it seems like you have a conflict of interest. Generally, you should avoid editing in topic areas where you have a conflict of interest, except to request edits on the article's talk page. Further, your username is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've replied at the user's talk page since they seem to be having trouble finding mine. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Koko Taylor

I removed the below message in quotes from the wiki page because she was my grandmother and this has nothing to do with her legacy and all her accomplishments. "In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service said that Taylor owed $400,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest, for the years 1998, 2000 and 2001. In those years combined, her adjusted gross income was $949,000."

Please remove 2600:8800:8F0A:900:9173:675C:626D:E2CA (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed it for now, as it likely constitutes undue weight. Do keep in mind that editing in areas that you have a conflict of interest is frowned upon, though. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article, but I have found one and added it for you. Please try and remember to include sources yourself with future edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 06:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm not sure what you mean; could you please be more specific? I didn't actually add the loan to DC United to the article; that was done by an IP. All I did was fix the link to DC United so that it linked to the proper article and add a period to the end of the sentence. I only edited the page because I encountered the edit during RC patrol, as football (not to mention sports in general) isn't an area of interest for me. I'm well aware of WP:RS, WP:BLP, and related policies, so I did a quick Google search to confirm that O'Brien was sent on loan, saw that the loan was mentioned with RS later in the article, and figured the edit was legit. I see now that the sources listed at the time only discussed a reported signing, so I suppose I could've been more thorough in checking the sources especially considering it's a BLP. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But the loan was NOT sourced when you edited. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Fair enough. From my reading of WP:BLP, the unsourced information didn't seem like it was challenged or likely to be challenged since it doesn't involve any claims of wrongdoing (or something else that would likely be seen as controversial) and it's been well-documented by news outlets. Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. Since I came across the edit during RC patrol, I'm also curious as to whether I should immediately revert any unsourced addition to a BLP, controversial or not, which is something I do most of the time. In this case, I figured it was fine since I was able to verify the addition with a quick Google search, so I decided to close the tab after making a few quick copyedits and return to Special:RecentChanges to keep a lookout for more urgent problems. I promise I'm not trying to wikilawyer or be vexatious here; I really would appreciate feedback. — SamX [talk · contribs] 13:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realize that my actions violated the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. From now on, I will revert any unsourced change to BLPs I see while on RC patrol, just to be safe. Thanks for the heads-up. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

@SamX, please notify the creator of the Peter Hehir article, which is 69.230.132.62, about the recent PROD of that article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: You're correct that it's generally best practice to notify the creator when PRODing, but this case is unusual because the article was created by an IP in 2005. (IPs haven't been able to create articles since December that year.) The IP currently geolocates to Detroit, and whoever used that IP in 2005 seems to have mostly edited in the topic area of Australian film and television. Given this, and the way ISPs work, it's very unlikely that whoever is using that IP address is the same person who used it 17 years ago, so there's really no point in posting a notice on the IP's talk page. See Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@SamX, you did a good job explaining why it’s unusual. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: No problem :) You also don't need to ping people when you leave messages on their user talk page, since they'll receive a notification whenever someone edits their talk page. See Help:Notifications for more information. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Help me

hey! I need some help from you. One user again reverting my edits without any specific reason and saying "Block evading sock" Bruhh is here (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

if you don't want help, please suggest who can help me @SamX Bruhh is here (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bruhh is here: It looks like you commented on the SPI case page, which is a good start. Aside from that, there's not very much you can do. If you haven't created your account to evade a block against policy, the CheckUser will determine that you're not a match for the other account and you'll be free to continue editing, although some more experienced editors may have some feedback for you that you should take into account. If you have created this account after being previously blocked, this account will be blocked as well. Hope that helps. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't make this account after any block. I created this account when Wikipedia suggest I edit as an editor after donation. Thank you for your guidance. Bruhh is here (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I'm sorry. My siteban proposal at ANI was tone-deaf, poorly conceived, and needlessly escalated an already fraught situation. I've long been frustrated to see chronic disruption occur on this site despite intervention from administrators, ArbCom, and the community (I'm not referring to TRM in particular here; I don't have any strong feelings about him other than regret that I needlessly made his life more difficult), but I lacked the insight and self-awareness that to understand that my kneejerk reaction would do nothing but generate even more of the toxicity that I'm so frustrated about. The world would be a nicer, happier place right now if I'd stayed in my lane and hadn't meddled in a mess that I wasn't involved in. I'm not asking for forgiveness or anything, and I acknowledge that many editors will (justifiably) remain frustrated with me and disgusted with my comment at ANI and the mess that followed. I accept that this very statement will probably be viewed by some as attention-seeking and unnecessarily self-flagellating. As I've written on my user page, I value accountability and I always welcome feedback and constructive criticism, so feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, ping me, or use some other means to get my attention if you think there's something I could be doing better, and I intend to honor that. Anyone is welcome to frankly and candidly share their opinion here on my talk page—I view criticism and feedback as vital to personal growth, and I clearly have some growing to do. Or don't. It's nobody's responsibility to explain to me where I went wrong when it's been clearly articulated by several people on ANI already. Consider this a self-trout. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Howdy! Just stoppin' by to thank you for the assist in the whole Reference Expander debacle on Sub-Saharan Africa. Slog barely begins to cover it, haha. It's appreciated! ~Judy _{(job requests)} 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks to you as well :) I'm not the best at writing articles (although it's something I've been working on), so I try to help out wherever else I can. When I saw on AN that there's a huge heap of references that need repairing, it seemed like the perfect thing to gnome away at. — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fairly Representing the Socialist View of Democracy Isn't Biased -- It's Accurately Representing Marginalized Viewpoints under a Capitalist Editorial Bias

I respectfully disagree. The content you preserved and allowed to stay, while deleting and seemingly destroying mine, is capitalist, Western propaganda -- absolutely not at all neutral in itself, although superficially presented as such to feign credibility and manufacture consent to its subjective, biased presumptions. The goal is to discredit the socialists who started this attempted revolution, to misinterpret and censor their point of view, to smear them as anti-democratic, to misunderstand and suppress the alternative approach to democracy that socialists pursue, and to allow only one perspective -- that of the capitalist ruling class and of its system of liberal democracy -- and not multiple ones. Nor even an accurate understanding of socialist approaches to democracy. Fairly and accurately describing socialists' views, instead of reflexively spouting false Western, capitalist propaganda to smear them, isn't a violation of neutrality -- it's the pursuit of it, up against a clear editorial bias on your part. The one viewpoint allowed is absolutely not at all neutral, but instead dramatically biased in favor of capitalism, against the left, and against the working class. That you chose the right-wing, capitalist point of view completely unaltered over a neutral, fair analysis of the views of socialists as democratic revolutionaries simply reveals your own bias against socialism, and any of its potential democratic bona fides and merits. I was in the process of incorporating my source when you just deleted and destroyed my work. Under the pretense of objectivity, neutrality, and a diversity of viewpoints, you attack and destroy the work of those with differing perspectives from the US, neoliberal and liberal establishment. How is this scandalous, absolutely biased and ideological behavior on your part allowed with impunity -- with no debate and no accountability on Wikipedia? Please return to me the work I produced, and I will re-upload it with the sourcing -- which I was in the middle of doing when you just deleted it. What's more, in the end, this one paragraph of non-capitalist/non-right-wing propaganda added to this article simply offers an additional perspective on this crucial history that is fair to and actually understands the motivations of the socialist revolutionaries who were the main protagonists. It complements and rounds out the obviously biased, right-wing viewpoint of the so-called "objective" narrative in the remainder of the article. The entire goal of uploading it was to do exactly what you claim to want to do -- offer a fair, accurate account and incorporate multiple perspectives. If having multiple viewpoints and ideological balance is the goal, then your unilateral censorship of accurate, fair representations of socialist ideology has the exact opposite effect of this ostensible objective -- it allows right-wing views while suppressing left-wing ones. This right-wing ideological censorship masquerading as objective truth is beneath the intellectual standards, and poorly serves the readers, of Wikipedia. 2601:19C:4480:3090:AD1D:AABA:6624:21B7 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've replied on the IP's talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I've replied again with a more thorough response in case the editor who posed the above comment is monitoring this page, but is using a different IP address. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Khalistan movement

First of all, many thanks for helping out with the ReferenceExpander debacle! I was skimming the list and happened to notice that Khalistan movement appears twice: a decrease by 290 on 13 January that was reverted, and then a decrease by 440 on 14 January. I think your cleanup means that we can check both appearances off the list, but I wanted to make sure. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware that there had been two edits to that page with ReferenceExpander. I recognize some of the references in the second diff but not all of them, so I'll have a look to see if I missed anything. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I just checked, and everything looks good to go. The references that I didn't repair were apparently removed along with the text cited to them sometime after Philoserf used ReferenceExpander. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Revdel at lung cancer

Thanks so much for getting to this while I was distracted ... most appreciated ... I would have gotten back there eventually but glad I didn't have to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) I've been dipping my toes into CopyPatrol recently since it seems like it's a much better use of my time than standard RC patrol, and I'll probably start working on CCIs pretty soon. I've worked a fair amount on the ReferenceExpander cleanup and CCI seems like it has a similar vibe. — SamX [talk · contribs] 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Arash Avin

Hi i solved problem about arash avin i wrote , and i rewrite with any copy right, please check thank you , if have any problem please tell me i solve asap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/arash_Avin Kiava (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kiava: Thanks for fixing that. Earwig's copyvio detector doesn't detect any glaring issues with the article in its current state, although I'll have to check more thoroughly sometime later when I have time. I am concerned that, as it is right now, the article's tone is overly promotional and inappropriate for an online encyclopedia. I'll take a closer look and reply again when I have the opportunity, but I do appreciate you reaching out. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rara National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Panda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

SmallCat dispute case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Nice work out there removing all of those Nazi flag image vandalism the many IP addresses left on many user's talk pages! 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Layah50: Thanks, same to you! It was kind of a slog and I'd rather be working through CopyPatrol, but someone had to do it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you too Sam. Great team work. Knitsey (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Likewise! — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

for catching the vandal on my talk page. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 10:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your assistance re William Stukeley. I apologize for not attributing the text I copied from another Wikipedia page. 166.199.115.30 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) It's a mistake that a lot of newcomers make; just be sure to attribute in the future and you'll be all set! Feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Against vandalists

hey @SamX I'm tired of these vandalists like @ThePakistanihistorian and others for their external interests. Can you please help me to block them by doing vandalism? Also tell me how I can report them and stop further vandalism Melechha (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melechha: Vandalism on Wikipedia is defined very narrowly—for an edit to be considered vandalism, it must be a deliberate attempt to contravene Wikipedia's purpose, which is to create a high-quality, comprehensive encyclopedia that is written from a neutral point of view. I know very little about the history of the Indian subcontinent so I'm not qualified to judge your or ThePakistanihistorian's edits to Battle of Sangamner, but at a glance it seems to be a standard content dispute, not an incident of vandalism. Wikipedia's community norms mandate that we assume good faith of our fellow editors whenever possible even when we disagree with them, and I see no clear indicators that they're acting in bad faith.

The standard practice when faced with such disagreements is to discuss on the article's talk page. It's good that you and other editors have begun to do so, but it looks like you're talking past each other without reaching any sort of resolution. The next step is to follow the one of the procedures described at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. The dispute resolution noticeboard and neutral point of view noticeboard are good places to seek the input of uninvolved editors. This is especially important in contentious topic areas, which includes India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I've left notices on the talk pages of everyone involved in the dispute that explain this in more detail.

While reading that discussion, I noticed that you seem to be editing from two separate accounts. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding multiple accounts—In general, alternate accounts should be disclosed on your user and user talk page, and should generally only be used if there's a compelling reason to do so—for example, many Wikipedians use an alt when they edit on public computers. It also would've been helpful if you'd linked to the article and/or discussion when messaging me on my talk page, since it would've saved me a bit of digging.

Thanks for your time, — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I have been using my alt for editng with PC. Melechha (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX

Hello, good afternoon! I hope you are doing well. I will explain the entire situation here, actually this battle of Saganmner took place in which the maratha king, shivaji was forced to retreat and his remaining army was destroyed by the Mughals, I provided the best citation we have of jadunath sarkar along with 5 more citations, I even spoke to @Melechha but he ignored this and again (in his words), vandalized this wikipedia page and put some wrongly took references. This page originally stated a Mughal victory and it's a known fact that this is a Mughal victory but @Melechha used obscure sources and vandalized the wikipedia page again, please be aware of his hypocritical behavior here and warn him not to change this page again, he should be issued a warning, if not a block. I provided 6 authentic citations but he dismissed them without no reason and once again added his 3 unknown citations. I hope you have a good day, and thank you for your time!

Regards, thePakistaniHistorian. ThePakistanihistorian (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThePakistanihistorian: I'm not an administrator and don't have the ability to block editors, although I'm in the process of drafting an AE report that will be reviewed by administrators. In the meantime, please don't discuss this further on my talk page. My knowledge of South Asian history is extremely limited and I'm not interested in getting involved in this content dispute. As I've said previously, you should be discussing this on the article's talk page or at appropriate dispute resolution venues instead. As I've explained several times, do not characterize edits that you disagree with as vandalism.

As a more general note to everyone who's commented here, any further attempts to convince me that "your side" is correct will be removed without comment. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, I will try to conclude this with him in a formal and respective manner, thank you for your time! and good luck in your administrators report ThePakistanihistorian (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

how the actual hell is this vandalism? explain yourself. You provided only 3 citations, I provided 6 in return, yet you rechanged it, please take this into account @SamX, @melechha has been editing from two accounts, changes sources even when he knows he is wrong here ThePakistanihistorian (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThePakistanihistorian: I'm not interested in getting involved in this content dispute. Please discuss this on the article's talk page at or the appropriate dispute resolution venues. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all I'm not using any of my alt for weeks. Second your all sources are based on Jadunath's old dated edition of his work in History of Aurangzib but he has fixed his error in his 5th edition of his book. Whereas my sources are based on contemporary records which says this battle was a Maratha victory. Melechha (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Melechha: Please discuss this on the article's talk page, not my talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

we can discuss this in our personal dms, then don't you ever dare to rechange it again, like even the amateurs know that it's a mughal victory, but let's discuss it somewhere else ThePakistanihistorian (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Against Vandalism

hello sir,even after your warning the user @عبدالرحمن4132 is continuously doing vandalism on page Battle of Sangamner. he had already crossed Three revert rule as he done more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sangamner&action=history. This user also threatening other users on summary index. Aryan330 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: As I've said previously to other editors, good-faith content disputes are not vandalism, and please discuss the issue on the article's talk page rather than engaging in revert wars. I appreciate that content disputes can be very frustrating at times, but that doesn't excuse using reverts rather than discussing on the article's talk page or accusing other editors of vandalism. 4132 hasn't broken the three revert rule (he's only made three reverts in the past twenty-four hours), but he absolutely is edit warring in a manner that is sanctionable. To be completely frank, none of the participants in this dispute (yes, this includes you) have been following best practices for dealing with content disputes, so I'll file an arbitration enforcement report at some point within the next twenty-four hours. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX I had said to him after my first and last editing on that page and also user @Melechha had continuously discussed with him that Sarkar's source can't be taken there as he himself mentioned about his mistake in his other edition,but rather than discussing actual issue he is making fire in sky by stating the statements like other sources also have this information nothing more than that.

Lastly he had broken it as he had reverted 4 times in less than 48 hours,you can see.

By the way thanks for your time,I had just reported you about his vandalism,take action if you find relevant.Aryan330 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aryan330: As I've said before, please stop using the word "vandalism" to describe edits that you disagree with. It seems to me that you don't understand what that word means on Wikipedia. Describing edits that you disagree with as "vandalism" will likely be considered a personal attack and will reflect poorly on you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX okay I will take care of it onwards.

till then take action if you find relevant about him(continuously reverting)Aryan330 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

False allegations

hey @SamX as you have commented warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind,but this is false allegations as I was warned for warning that user who edited that page not for Disruption of that page.see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163195494 ,Infact after that I had discussed about improving that page in talk page & at the end not made any edit. Aryan330 (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Carex pauciflora

On 15 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carex pauciflora, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the perigynia of the few-flowered sedge spring outward when brushed against? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carex pauciflora. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Carex pauciflora), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otter civet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snare.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)