User talk:Citadel48

Welcome!

Hello, Citadel48, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has been reverted.
Your edit here to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1yfJDCMU64) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pink Project may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Linda Wesley, [[Rossana Casale]] (still unknown as a solo artist at the time) and [Naimy Hackett]]; the voices were multi-tracked and slightly sped up to simulate a schoolchildren's choir. (All of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Willi Jutzi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

http://www.tidsresan.se/WW_Jutzi.html (In Swedish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel48, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Citadel48! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Citadel48. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

noq (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Citadel48. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 17:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

noq (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Removal of edits too the "Jimmy McShane" page

Hi Citadel48, McShane's birth date was 23 May 1957 according to ancestry.co.uk, and his date of death is shown on the gravestone he shares with his father (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=10930124&PIpi=18635942). The year 1984 was when the band started and so their activities began. The "Tarzan Boy" single is copyrighted that very year, indicating the song was recorded in '84. (http://www.discogs.com/Baltimora-Tarzan-Boy/release/144145). Ajsmith141 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that Nick Tavelski's book is 100% reliable, seeing that the date of death listed for McShane is clearly incorrect. There are more sources pointing to 23 May 1957, and more importantly a site like ancestry.co.uk uses primary source documents which they have digitized and made available - census, marriage, birth, and death records etc. In regards to the year that "Tarzan Boy" was recorded - a composition is copyrighted automatically when the work is "created," which means being recording for the first time, in whatever shape or form. If the band formed in 1984 then Baltimora would still be active from that year, even if recording didn't begin immediately. Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for you're time. Happy editing!Citadel48 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theorie shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. McSly (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the reliable sourcing policy in detail. YouTube mashups of conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources. You must cite credible sources in major independent media with a reputation for fact-checking. Please stop edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bitter Heart

added a link pointing to British

Seona Dancing

added a link pointing to Razzmatazz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm Amaury. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page M72 LAW because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimora

Please refrain from reverting, Baltimora wasn't McShane. McShane was the frontman of the project, that doesn't make him Baltimora. They should remain as separate pages.--Harout72 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimora was not a single man act as you believe. There were others involved too. We have number of references provided at Baltimora, you should go over them. It was a band/project.--Harout72 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Tavelski's book "Knocking on heavens door" says "Baltimora moved too Milan", and says "Jimmy McShane aka "Baltimora"Citadel48 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was the name of the band/project, not McShane's stage name as you may think. You are mixing up stage names such as C.C. Catch with the name of projects as it is in the case of Baltimora. There is a difference between stage names and names of projects/bands.--Harout72 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already did provide a source for you above that clearly says Baltimora was a band. Here is another one.--Harout72 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an actual musical ensemble, then why did they're line up change twice in two years? Why were all of the records only showing McShane? Not Bassi or anyone else? Why in all of the performances was only McShane, or only non bands members playing? Tavelski's book is more accurate than the billboards as actual research was done into Baltimora, whilst the billboards document record sales/chart positions, and not personnel. The book suggests his stage name was Baltimora, and that it was no band or band name.[1] The book provides actual information on him, whilst you're sources simply state "band." The only original sources listing "members" were the record sleeves that listed the studio personnel. Check these two photos for comparison of personnel composition[2][3]

The images are only of McShane, because he was the frontman, nothing more.--Harout72 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to view Baltimora as a project, rather than a band (which would traditionally have multiple stage performers). I think the term band is what confuses you, as you are used to seeing multiple stage performers. That is not the case here, this was the project itself that was named Baltimora.--Harout72 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band: The Band is when the members of the group are directly invloved in composing their own music and they also perform their music on the stage, they also appear on the covers of their records. Examples of this would be Depeche Mode, Scorpions etc.

Project: The project is put together by a producer or a series of producers, who compose the music but do not get involved in stage performances and never appear on the cover of the records. Examples of this would be Culture Beat, Magic Affair, Cappella etc.--Harout72 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music projects may often be refereed to as bands or acts, the fact of the matter is that lot of them are not bands, they are projects, simply put together by producers. I'm only trying to simplify all of this for you. Anyways, I think enough has been said about this. If you still have issues with this, you should transfer all of our conversation from our talk-pages to the talk page of Baltimora, and then perhaps you should consider Wikipedia:Third opinion. I believe, I have provided enough explanation about all of this, it should by now be clear. By the way, Billboard is a reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McShane

You should never revert without clearly explaining in edit summaries as to what the reason is for your revert. We already discussed and established through sources that McShane was not Baltimora. Further undiscussed reverts you make, will constitute WP:Edit warring, which you should avoid doing.--Harout72 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have responded to this dispute here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and youtube

The reason that people are removing lots of your sources are because they are not vented. pls read over WP:CIRCULAR and WP:YOUTUBE. Basically using sources from websites for military articles indicates to people your not aware of scholarly publications on the subject at hand. I suggest you search https://books.google.com/ for real publications. A site like .pacificwrecks.com falls under WP:SELFPUBLISH (user submitted info not vented). If you have any questions pls leave me a note here. I will go around and see what sources I can fix for you...we have a list of books as seen at Wikipedia:List of bibliographies that can be used. -- Moxy (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimora

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Baltimora. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the Background

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Living in the Background. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/

Ok got another alert about a source used. Can you pls read over WP:SOURCE... I am sorry I have not gotten around to fixing the other links...I will do so this week for you. -- Moxy (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC) It's fineCitadel48 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC) What's the link?Citadel48 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was for this edit I guess. I will help where I can ...I wont revert anything. -- Moxy (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally messed up one of the references on the page; tried reverting numerous times, then was blocked from editing the page for 24 hours. Doubt I may undo the edit, may try tomorrow.Citadel48 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC Alert regarding your edits to Bijeljina massacre

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 the Balkans, 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 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.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Stop making redundant edits on Bijeljina massacre. Your combat infobox is utterly unnecessary, and completely ignores the fact that the article is about the takeover of the town and not events that occurred later through the war. Furthermore, using Youtube as a source is not in accordance with Wiki policy, regardless of who made the video. Stop it. 23 editor (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube and fair use

G'day Citadel48, you appear to be under the misapprehension that you can link to youtube as fair use. Unfortunately, almost all if not all news clips uploaded to youtube are copyvios. WP policy says that you can't link a copyvio to WP. If you continue to link to youtube copyvio clips, an administrator may ban you from editing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodday, I think you might have misunderstood the situation. As the Wikipedia article on fair use states, "Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test." I am citing news reports from BBC and CNN in pursuit of a typical research and reporting project. You have to realize (or confirm in the same article if you wish) that "To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright—only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection." So if we start from scratch, the underlying facts or commentaries in a news report or documentary are not subject to copyright in the first place - only the medium of expression is, i.e. only the said news report or documentary is. Again, I am only using the facts, as I am not using the underlying documentary itself to enhance my story or draw audiences, and then I duly give credit where credit is due by providing a link to the source. If you see any flaws in the process, be specific. Stepping back, you do not really think that if there is an actual infringement, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would not have addressed the issue by now, given that both Wikipedia and Youtube are headquartered in the Bay Area, in California. Stated differently, facts are not copyrighted. Providing a source for any relevant facts is preferable to not doing so. Pasting a link is a digital substitute to citing a source, but if one were to allege that that is an unauthorized use of copyrighted material, this is where fair use would come in. Besides, one of the factors used to assess infringement versus fair use is whether use of a copyrighted article would increase of decrease the value of the article to the owner. I contend that a careful and responsible use of facts from a BBC or CNN documentary would rather increase than tarnish the brand value of these news organizations. I hope this helps.Citadel48 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to help you out here, chief. Clearly, if you read WP:ELNEVER, you are wrong. If you link to copyvios I'll report it at ANI, and the community can decide if you are complying with WP policy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

My apologies, thought they were for edits that were simply small.Citadel48 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mistake to make. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of known JNA fatalities in the 1992 JNA column incident in Tuzla for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of known JNA fatalities in the 1992 JNA column incident in Tuzla is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of known JNA fatalities in the 1992 JNA column incident in Tuzla until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Citadel48, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Second warning for copyright violation

Your addition to 1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

READ WHAT IS POSTED HERE BEFORE YOUR blOCKED!!!!

This is not grade school....just take the effort to write content in your own words over copy and pasting. You seem to be having some real problems here... copy and pasting....poor sources...etc..etc... perhaps you should read over Wikipedia:Mentorship -- Moxy (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources pls no plagiarism. -- Moxy (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Can you now read over WP:CIRCULAR.. cant use other wikis as a source. I really think you should join Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. -- Moxy (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the Background (album)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Living in the Background (album). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. invasion of Panama

I hear you and understand your frustration, but as I myself have been reminded in the past, we're supposed to be trying to keep newbies in the encyclopedia. My impulse was to just revert to your last version, but I've restrained myself. Sing out with what you'd prefer me to do - happy to help. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any edits too the page in over three days. I believe you may be mistaken. Citadel48 (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

It might be worth taking a look at Help:Minor edit. It appears you are marking basically all of your edits as minor, even when they change significant portions of the article. Edits should only be marked as minor when they are things like spelling correction, fixes to grammar or punctuation, etc. Anything that adds or takes away content should not be considered a minor edit. Some people may not see your edit if it is marked minor, depending on their settings. Could cause some confusion. The more you know (insert rainbow). Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Citadel48 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panama YouTube Doc

Can you give the time of the claim made in the doc you referenced? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

48:50

Please take more care

Please take more care before adding information to Wikipedia. The spelling and grammar in some of your recent edits leave a lot to be desired, and create work for other Wikipedians who have to clean up after you. I am referring to the Stanley Graham article and several others related to it. Moriori (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory template

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did I do so? Citadel48 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked it; and the edit made there is not even by me. Citadel48 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diff says that's your edit, removing someone elses post. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May have done it accidentally when I was archiving, have no recollection of making an individual edit like it either way. Citadel48 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is good

I just wanted to touch base and let you know that my WP:ANI report was 100% not an attempt to keep you from editing. In fact I wish you would edit more. But I also want you to understand that WP policies and guidelines are here for a reason. If you want to be part of the community you have to go by the community rules.

We've all been a new users before. It's a process, and there are a lot of policies and guidelines to learn, but give it a while and you'll be the person quoting WP:SOMETHING to a newbie. I myself have a handful of more experienced users that I go to when I don't understand something. There are more than enough people here who are willing to help you. You just have to be willing to be helped. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I just thought for a second that you were giving me a hard time, sorry. I have now understood what the minor edit function is primarily for, and will keep in mind how to properly utilize it. Citadel48 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may still be some misunderstanding of minor edits. In fact, all of your edits are still being marked minor, even the one to Edward Mark Best that added the entire early life section to the article. That's not a minor edit in any form. I just thought I would let you know. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your (just reverted) addition of a military conflict infobox at Bijeljina massacre. Timothyjosephwood is apparently less likely than me to "bite the newbies", but you've been told about this, an admin has told you that your behaviour is wrong, but you continue to do it. I don't care why you are doing it, just stop. Now. You need to uncheck the "mark all edits as minor" box in your preferences. I'd do it right now, before I take you to ANI myself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making unconstructive edits, you are removing factual edits. I have already reported you for vandalism. Citadel48 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Capture of Bijeljina for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Bijeljina until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying text from other sources

In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted. Hello Citadel48, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Failure to respect consensus on an ARBMAC article

Citadel48, your continual re-insertion of a main template pointing to your POVFORK Capture of Bijeljina article is contrary to the obvious consensus, the merge discussion and the current trend of the deletion discussion for that article. One more non-consensus insertion on the talk page and I will ask the admins to impose an ARBMAC sanction. You have already been ARBMAC warned, and you appear to not care about any community norms. This is the last warning I will be giving you about your behaviour. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will also report you & user:23 editor for scrutinizing my Yugoslav wars-related edits on the basis of the Capture of Bijeljina dispute, and for you're previous comments as well. Cheers Citadel48 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck reporting me me on double standard as well. Citadel48 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Bijeljina massacre. Your continued edit-warring to delete well-sourced material regarding this subject is unwiki-like behavior. This is your final warning. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editorials have no place on wikipedia. Citadel48 (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

I had a feeling you might say something like that. So, per my previous warning that this article is covered by ARBMAC, I am requesting enforcement of discretionary sanctions here. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is occurring at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Citadel48. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Zoey Tur, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".
It seems you have received this notice at least 3 times before and are still marking large edits as minor. E.g. here, where you also seem to have removed a valid source. 220 of ^Borg 10:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was attempting to only remove the non-sourced information. Citadel48 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AE#Citadel48

You've already replied there, so you're aware of the complaint. It does appear that you have consistently edited Bijeljina massacre to make it more favorable to the Serbian side. On 26 July you even added a POV-section tag, complaining that a section wasn't neutral when the material was cited to a report by the United Nations Commission of Experts. You also continue to mark all your edits as minor, even when editing contested articles in the domain of WP:ARBMAC. Admins reviewing this complaint might consider a topic ban from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, owing to your inability to edit neutrally, and banning you from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC. If you disagree with either of these restrictions, please expand your response at AE to address them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a convincing response from you, I've enacted the proposed bans. Per the reasoning provided here at AE EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from anything related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on all pages of Wikipedia including talk pages and noticeboards, and you are banned from marking article edits as 'minor' within the domain of WP:ARBMAC.

You have been sanctioned per the reasonning provided here at AE

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

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my addition of references at Bougainville Conflict and marking edits as minor

I note of cse that rather than discussing the numerous issues I brought up IRT this article you chose to revert my addition of references and the NPOV and Verifiability tags I added with this edit [4] with no explanation or even an edit summary. When doing so you once again marked it as "minor", as indeed you seem to be continuing to do so with all your edits. The major issues of your edits aside (which I have listed on the article talkpage and which I invite you to address) marking such an edit as minor is contrary to Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark. This issue was also discussed in your recent Arbitration Enforcement - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Citadel48. Its quite basic do not continue to mark non-minor edits as such, at the very least its slack, but given the pattern that is emerging it seems more likely to be disruptive on your part. Finally, your half sentence response [5] to the significant concerns raised about your changes to the Bougainville Conflict is hardly reasonable in the circumstances. Pls consider taking the opportunity I have presented to discuss the matter fully and to listen to the advice and read the policy that has been presented to you by other editors, because at the moment your edits have no consensus to support them. At the same time I'd recommend you self-revert to display good faith otherwise its difficult to see how this isn't going to have to lead to a process which may well result in further sanctions against you. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I am busy making additions to the page. I explained, I sourced it. Citadel48 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which will just be rolled back under the copyright violation policy. All copyright violations must be immediately removed to legally protect WP. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may remove the YT links, but please do add what the original source was, etc. Citadel48 (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still problems related to minor edits. This example added a reference to an article. Adding or removing references would be one of the bullets under "when not to mark" at Help:Minor edit; with only four such bullets in that section, it seems like it would be easy to avoid such an issue. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Citadel48 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you being open to feedback, but right after acknowledging my comment, you removed a reference URL from the same article and marked it as minor. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the YT links. Citadel48 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which would of course not be a minor edit. But it sounds like the actual text you added to the article was a copyright violation. In that case, you need to remove the copied article text until you can place it entirely in your own words; it doesn't help to remove the source but leave the copyrighted text in the article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were links to a copyright violation of a Channel 9 documentary illegally uploaded on YouTube. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? For the GLW article, I already wrote it in my own words. Citadel48 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See this discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 05:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citadel48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not intend on editing any of the contested pages (e.g. Balkan/Bougainville related)

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter whether or not you're going to edit these pages. The reason is self explanatory. w^L^{<speak·check>} 05:17, 10 August 2015 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

w^L^{<speak·check>} 05:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fair Control

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fair Control requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GamerPro64 04:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]