User talk:Saturnalia0/Archives/1

Welcome!

Hello, Saturnalia0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 20 January 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O'Keefe article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please undo your most recent reinsertion of disputed content and seek consensus on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

proxy block

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).

Saturnalia0/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. This is a residential IP address and belongs to NET (telecommunications), which serves dynamic IP addresses for their clients. I rarely post from this location so it doesn't affect me that much but others who happen to receive this address in the future might get blocked with no reason Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; you need to provide your IP address so we can investigate. WhatIsMyIP will let you know your IP address. Yamla (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2017 (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 accepted the request.

Saturnalia0/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. This is a residential IP address and belongs to NET (telecommunications), which serves dynamic IP addresses for their clients. I rarely post from this location so it doesn't affect me that much but others who happen to receive this address in the future might get blocked with no reasonSaturnalia0 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

All ports seem to have been closed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address belongs to virtua.com.br and appears to be a hosting service. Although it's no longer running an open proxy on the port for which it was blocked, it is now running what appears to be an open proxy on port 5566. It's quite possible this could change quickly, though, so it's worth the next reviewer double-checking. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the WikiLeaks page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.is

The section explains the ways how an user can interact with the website. It is not so trivial. If you feel it has too many links to other websites, do remove the links, not the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.146.228 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that. As the original remover explained, the section did not conform to policy (see WP:NOTHOWTO). The burden to adequate content to policy is on the user who wishes to add it. It suffices to rewrite the section, see the aforelinked page on how to do so. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

proxy block

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

Saturnalia0/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. This is a residential IP address - 191.187.242.227 - and belongs to NET (telecommunications), which serves dynamic IP addresses for their clients. This is the same request I have made in the past for a different IP address belonging to the same company.

Accept reason:

Looks closed or unresponsive; another admin has unblocked. --slakr^\ talk / 04:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a proxy check. The UTRS request has been closed as a duplicate of this request. Just Chilling (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Saturnalia0/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17692 was submitted on Mar 06, 2017 11:10:27. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lula approval rating

I don't recall where I got the numbers from. It was probably from the CNT website, where there's a PDF report of every public opinion poll they have published since 1998. It's currently out of air, but you can find a cached copy here. The result of the last CNT/Sensus poll before President Lula left office (on December 2010) can be found in Brazilian news sites, such as this. I also found a chart comprising results of the Datafolha poll from 2007 to 2010 - its results are slightly different though and it does not cover the last months of his administration (But the source is reliable). To be honest with you I didn't remember I made this chart at all, but I'm glad it's still resonating after all these years. -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll take a look at the sources and add them if matching. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an editor?

Hi! I am working with a student editor who speaks English as a second language. I believe that she is a native speaker of Portuguese and would greatly benefit from someone who is fluent in this language, as they could help explain some of the more technical aspects of Wikipedia editing and content that may not be as easy to understand. I know that guidelines can be difficult to wrap your head around even if you're a native English speaker, having it as a second language may just make it that much more confusing.

Would you be able to help with the editor? Their name is Efreitas2 and I would be absolutely grateful if you could help with this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalor (Wiki Ed), I'd be glad to help, but I speak Brazilian Portuguese, I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for. I'm not a linguist and I have no experience with other variants - Portuguese or African. Also keep in mind I'm a relatively new user myself. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that she's Brazilian per her last name, but I'm not sure yet. I was a little concerned that you're fairly new here, so if you don't feel comfortable doing this, then please don't feel pressured to step in! I don't want you to do something that you may not be 100% familiar with yet. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalor (Wiki Ed), I know the basic policies and I'm always looking to learn more, I think I'd be able to help and that it could be a good experience for me as well. Hit me up if you need anything. By the way I'm not familiar with WikiEdu, I skimmed through some links but I could only find information about educators - I assume that's your role. If there's anything you need me to read or do before I can help you, send me the links. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEd is the educational wing of Wikipedia and we work with teachers (typically college professors) who are incorporating editing Wikipedia into their lesson plan. I'm going to check with the teacher to verify her language and if she does speak Brazilian Portuguese, I'm going to see if there are any areas of particular concern for her that maybe you can rephrase in Portuguese for her. As far as what to read, I would say that the best things would just be to brush up on the basics if there's anything you're unsure of or are rusty with. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I jumped the gun - it looks like she doesn't speak Portuguese. Thank you so much for being willing to help though! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm Drmies. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to H3h3Productions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I proposed an alternative version on the talk page which I believe to be satisfactory, please take a look. We can proceed with this discussion there. Thanks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please cease edit warring on Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

This is not UNDUE -- the article is still overwhelmingly defamatory and the sources in the paragraph are highly respected RS. The alternative to including what Rousseff has to say is deleting the entire article as an egregious violation of the BLP policy. I am inclined to take this route if you continue. The article has already been through the NPOV board and I am simple implementing consensus Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_64#impeachment_of_Dilma_Rousseff. If you disagree with a specific edit, please make use of the talk page, or I'll just throw up my hands, stop trying to work with you-all, and tag it as an attack page which it definitely was and probably still is despite my heroic efforts to make an acceptable article of it. I am restoring the sourced material (again). If you have a specific issue with the material please discuss. This is not going to stay on en.wikipedia in its present form, period. Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring, please read WP:BURDEN/WP:NOCON. If you insist on adding material to a long standing version of the lead without discussion when there is opposition you might get blocked. You do not fix WP:NPOV with WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS is not WP:UNDUE. Since you failed to discuss your proposed additions in the tp I will start a section there so we and uninvolved editors can discuss them.Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 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. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Your help desk question

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen it, thank you for the notice! The editor that replied it seems to have taken the initiative to fix the issue. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Helen Keller

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Helen Keller you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lede

I wondered about that. Let me read your edit while you are here in case I have a question. Elinruby (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not sure whether you are right actually -- your edit puts back what I was trying to fix. But I'm willing to consider that you are probably less confused than me about this point, and hey, the article has been this bad this long, and I am tired. I'll talk on the discussion page if I still think you are wrong after looking at this more when I come back. I am out of the article for the rest of the day at least now. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby I was thinking about starting a talk page section about it to explain in further detail, I will do it later tonight. I will try to reincorporate the phrasing you introduced - that Rousseff was not personally implicated. The issue with it was that she wasn't implicated in Odebrecht denouncing Temer for accepting money for his party, but she is being directly tried with Temer over their campaign funds (which is where you introduced the text). As I said I'll start a tp section later so we can see how we can phrase it. I'll try to answer your comments below there as well, I too can't work on it right now. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read that. I see your issue now maybe, and actually I *think* I understood that but apparently did not explain it well enough, if I did. Let me see if I can save you some typing while I am still winding down from this marathon. If I said "and also faces" would that be on the right road? My understanding is that there is testimony that *he* solicited the funds, and none that she did, at least so far, BUT it was for the re-election campaign where she was on the same ticket as he was even though their terms are "constitutionally separate" whatever that means and he asked for money for *his* party, which is not the same as hers and is also no longer in the same coalition. If not, yeah, go ahead and edit when you have time, and I'll look at *that* when I come back. Yes, my concern is lack of proof so far against her personally, you are right about that. I get that PT also had plenty corruption and slush funds and kickbacks. And I did wonder if "process" is a trial here, or a process as in "a series of actions/events." Are they co-defendants or is the judge just saving time? Might also be nice if applicable to work in the wrinkle that the candidate with the original complaint (I think) then formed a government with Temer. And also to work in today's strike and protests. And now I really do have to go, someone is waiting. Ta. Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby I'm replying here because it's easier, if you believe that bringing this discussion to the attention of other editors is desirable please copy it to the talk page of the article.

there is testimony that *he* solicited the funds Correct, but the testimonies are somewhat conflicting. The person who says Temer requested it is Cláudio Melo Filho (vice-president of Odebrecht)[1], but Marcelo Odebrecht (president of Odebrecht) testified that Temer didn't request it, though he benefited from it[2]. It's hard to say who's telling the truth and if anything is to be included all POVs should be shown. Temer of course denies everything. Notice this article isn't about Temer, though.

and none that she did, at least so far Correct, but there is testimony by Marcelo Odebrecht (president of Odebrecht) that she knew about it[3] (the The Guardian story[4] does not mention this because this testimony came at a later date), and by Alexandrinho Alencar (former director of Odebrecht) that Rousseff's treasury chief requested it[5]. Rousseff denies everything of course. You could say she was not personally implicated in this. Since our article only says "Temer requested funds" I don't see why it would be necessary to say anything about Rousseff at all, but I won't oppose reintroducing the sentence. The problem was that the sentence wasn't referring to these fund requests by Temer (see here), it was referring to the trial. Which leads us to...

Their ticket is what is on trial, Rousseff being directly implicated in the accusation of illegal campaign financing (though not of personally requesting slush funds). The court might decide to "cassar a chapa" ("a chapa" = the ticket, "cassar" = make ineligible for a given period of time), i.e. make them both ineligible for some time (or they might come up with some legal shenanigans to have separate sentences). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know Paulo knows how to look at article history. He can address any issues he has. We aren't really disagreeing, you and I, either. Although I am still asking questions ;) frankly he may be glad I am bugging you for a change. It may matter that we are in the lede.with this text. But hmm:

to answer some of what you said, I was not aware of the discrepancy between Filho (yes that is where I get this) and his boss.
I am not trying, at all, to paint Dilma as some debutante (as she said, I think) -- but if there is no evidence, there is no evidence, and that's a problem for the BLP standard. As I understand it.

There is no evidence she personally requested any funds (nor is anyone saying she did) but I don't think that's in the article in the first place. If it is please remove it. She is being tried with Temer because of bad campaing finances (it is an actual trial, though not an usual one as it's handled by a supreme court like thing (the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral [Supreme Electoral Court])), as mentioned in the previous answer she is accused of knowing about the slush funds and her staff is accused of being responsible. She denies. Temer is accused of being personally involved in the dirt, others say he wasn't but benefited from it. He denies. So until a verdict comes out both accusations and defense should be shown. I don't remember seeing anything in the article that said it was proven that their finances were dirty, only that several people make that accusation. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now. I am willing to believe that you know more about this than I do.

So... Are they doing this as one trial or concurrent trials or? I wonder why Odebrecht says she knew? And that Filho is wrong/lying? I did see the thing about handling the money for the guerrillas back in the day so I am not really seeing her as a hapless victim but I am not sure that *she* is claiming that she is, either... and the getting caught by the dictatorship doesn't prove to me that she is all that sneaky either, to be running this behind the scenes, if that's the thought.

They're together on it, as I said it's their ticket that is on trial. But judges might decide to treat them differently in some aspects, for instance if it turns out that Temer was the mastermind of X and Rousseff was not aware of X. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that trial pretty soon? (end of the month is now)

Yeah they want to close the case but as anything involving politics it's always being postponed or held back.[6] 02:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether the Rousseff-Temer ticket had its own account or the two parties were spending separately like US independent expenditure committees or what

That's understandable, because it hasn't been defined yet weather their campaign accounts should be treated separately or not in trial (see here, you might find an English version of this story as an English version of this source is used throughout the article). Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this is a matter of Brazilian law that somebody is writing up an article on right now though, so no rush on explaining this, btw. I am messing around in here again btu I have definitely had enough Rousseff for the rest of the day.

you do seem however to be saying that this is more like an audit of their joint paperwork that a trial per se, and that if she signed off on the declaration she is responsible? Kind of hard to miss those million-dollar donations, I get that. But do we know?

I will look at these questions, and any answers or edirs you have done, tomorrow or if not soon. Do what you think meanwhile. Thanks for your efforts. Bye. Elinruby (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

re "the" PT, this is the way I personally would say her party (the worker's party, for that matter the democratic movement) but this is a quibble and possibly an artifact of my own speech habits, which blend several dialects. I take it you don't do that in Brazil? Will revisit some other time or maybe decide that I don't care. I am tired and was about to quit, and will yield the article to you for review. I made many small changes for english, not all of them important if you dislike one in particular. And they do assume I understand correctly, though I am getting my hands around this. I think. Elinruby (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're correct, it just hurts my ears to listen "the PT". It sounds like "The The Worker's Party" (sic). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I *guess* budgetary is a word, just looked and a definition comes up. It sounds funny to me. Perhaps I have been in the US too long. But fyi budget, while a noun, can also be used as an adjective in this context, I think, for variety. Perhaps it's a bit "journalese", which is a complaint I sometimes get from Americans. Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

peace out -- ta for the fixes I thanked you for.

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Right-wing politics 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 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. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted three times in the last 48 hours. Please discuss changes to long-standing consensus on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOCON, WP:BURDEN, you are the ones edit warring. The ArbCon decision was that no infraction was committed. What can I do if people like you spam my talk page with groundless accusations? I will take the discussion to the talk page as apparently no one reads policy around here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groundless? [7], [8] and [9]. The topic has seen extensive drive-by POV disruption. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now [10]. it's been sourced, as you requested. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello Saturnalia0. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 14:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Your GA nomination of Helen Keller

The article Helen Keller you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Helen Keller for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review SNUGGUMS, I will see what I can do about the concerns you've raised in the next couple days/weeks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, and best of luck improving it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ulbricht

You probably should have just reverted that rewrite. Have a look at the massive puff piece it is now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my PewDiePie edit

Hey Saturnalia0, I added the viewer demographics because PewDiePie is often seen or reported on as being for children or watched mainly by children. I can't find the information I added in the infobox. Is there any other way to add that information to the article? Greets Adrio (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Adrio, you were right, I reverted myself. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR

Please consider the merits of WP:TLDR. I'm concerned about the repeated listings of sources and citations on article talk pages. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Input

There is a discussion happening at the Daily Mail article regarding the inclusion of a line in the lead. You may be interested in providing your opinion. If you are, please do. Thanks. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Faux thank you for the invitation! I'm already involved in more tp discussions than I can handle though, so maybe in the future if the discussion is still open. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol right

Hello Saturnalia0, i am Jasao, a very active editor of the lusophone Wikipedia. In ptwiki the autopatrol right allows users to patrol his own edits and pages created, to reduce the workload of the recent changes and recent pages patrollers. I read the autopatrol information page of this language of Wikipedia and i noted that here the autopatrol right only allows the users to patrol his own pages created, to reduce the workload of the new pages patrollers, so i deduced that the edits of the users with autopatrol not is patrolled. So i have a question: in the enwiki the autopatroll right allows users with the right only to patrol his pages created or allows to patrol the pages created and the edits made? Thanks and greetings! Jasao (msg) 05:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take a look on the recent changes and i noted that the exclamation stating that the issue was not patrolled don´t exist here (i deduced that because the IP edits don´t have the exclamation). So only the pages have the need to be patrolled. It is? Jasao (msg) 06:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasão: I believe it's precisely that. WP:APAT is only for page creation and WP:PC is for reviewing pending changes, there is no revision patrolling as in the pt wiki. When I applied for auto patrol in the pt wiki I was hoping for the functionality of WP:PC and I believe it's the correct permission to ask for since pt:WP:AR says Marcar edições alheias como validadas. Saturnalia0 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturnalia0: Thanks, my doubt was healed. I believe that your request will be acepted, the number of edits is small but the edits have quality, what confers you the confidence to have the right of patrol your own edits and validate other users edits. Good contributions! Jasão (msg) 07:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Woven Digital / Uproxx Media Group

Hi there! I was looking around at articles for digital media companies and saw that you'd recently made some constructive edits to the articles for CNN, HuffPost, and Buzzfeed, so I wanted to ask if you'd be interested to look at a request I have for Uproxx Media Group (formerly Woven Digital), which owns sites including Uproxx and BroBible. On behalf of the company, I've written a new draft to improve the article and in my edit request, I've also proposed moving the article to the company's new name, Uproxx Media Group. I have a conflict of interest, so I'm looking for neutral editors to review the draft and offer input on the name change suggestion. Would you be able to help? Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 16912_Rhiannon. Normally I would be willing to help but I am not familiar with Wikipedia's COI policy and I'm currently working on other articles. Perhaps if it's still needed in the future I can take a look at it. Best, Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I totally understand and appreciate your offer to help down the line if needed. I'll ping back here if I'm still struggling to find anyone in a few weeks. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Please keep in mind that discretionary sanctions apply at Black Lives Matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure....

Not sure why I'm just now noticing you with this account. But just saying hi. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&curid=2377593&diff=799302674&oldid=799258393 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. What's even worse is in your haste to be uncivil, you didn't notice the sanction had already been removed by the sanctioning administrator after being informed by numerous other administrators that the sanction was improper. CBS527^Talk 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If...

you are still planning on editing controversial politics related articles like here then I'd appreciate it if you refrained from posting obnoxious insults and false accusations about other editors on off-wiki sites, especially in a way that looks like canvassing and asking others to brigade discussions for you.

And btw, I'm not the "self-proclaimed" whitewasher-in-chief. I was proclaimed thusly by User:TheTimesAreAChanging, iirc. Volunteer Marek 16:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek Not to worry, I do not intend to. Happy editing. PS I always wait discussions to close to post them off wiki. I don't partake in brigading. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Volunteer Marek I only now saw the diffs. I don't think the reddit article is "controversial" nor that it's very politics related. I reverted it because I saw it on my watchlist and the well referenced text seemed deserving of a mention, but if it's not who cares. Not something I'll waste my time opposing on talk pages. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So much I guess from you refraining from editing political articles... Volunteer Marek 18:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek Funny story actually, I used the "clear watchlist" function thinking it would make everything marked as read but instead it erased everything on my watchlist. Dang it! Nothing I could do, had to restored my pre-purge-of politics-related-articles backup. I tried cleaning up most stuff, but clearly I wasn't thorough enough. Not to worry, besides Milo and Hoppe who apparently is a neonazi now as well I don't think there was anything too political left. Don't think we'll be seeing each other anytime soon after the current content dispute. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPLC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Saturnalia0. 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]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit summaries

[11]. Don't do that. Volunteer Marek 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]