User talk:Ethanbas/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Ethanbas, 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! SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi; Two problems

Problem 1

Hi. They let you engage in paid for editing? That's interesting. Are you being paid to edit the Sasson article?

Please revert yourself here.

Your edit put back in place the edits by an editor who has now been reverted by a series of editors, including an admin. That editor is consistently deleting RS supported material. Deleting RS refs. And adding language he concocts.

You're not just reverting my edit -- calling it vandalism, even though it is appropriate. But reverting the other editors, including admin Material Scientist, who are trying to keep this vandal from vandalizing the page.

See here for example.

If you want me to get admins such as Material Scientist involved (again), let me know. Otherwise, please look at the history and self-revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:A87C:4133:5F08:F9B4 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem 2

Furthermore - you are making a mistake [1]. The material you deleted is all true and supported properly by footnotes to mainstream media. Please stop deleting footnoted material. You cant delete it because you dont like the format of the footnotes. That is not acceptable. If you dont understand, we can involve the editor who just edited that page who also looks to be an administator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:A87C:4133:5F08:F9B4 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You responded on my page - "ethanbas:I'm not being paid to edit the Sasson article. I reverted your edits only because you don't know how to reuse citations correctly. The content you were putting on was fine. I'm not going to waste my time to refix the links, which i did, before you messed it up again. What you're writing is all correct. Just learn how to reuse citations correctly please, thanks."

You are wrong. There is nothing in wikipedia procedures that allows you to delete material you admit is accurate, because you do not like the way the form of the citations looks. Nothing. At all. Ask an administrator.

There are rules against deleting material that is accurate and that has proper citations. That is what you are doing. Not good. 2604:2000:E016:A700:A87C:4133:5F08:F9B4 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Easterlin hypothesis

I'm afraid this article does not qualify for speedy deletion. An article can only be speedily deleted if it meets a very narrow range of criteria, you can read them here. Notability is not one of them. If you want to get an article deleted on notability grounds then you need to use the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes. Hut 8.5 21:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ethanbas, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Form 1099-OID has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. 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 cite the source using an inline citation. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Dysejaculation

Hi, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. Ethanbas, thanks for creating Dysejaculation!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references from independent reliable sources to the article to meet our verifiability and notablility requirements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nikolai Efimovich Varfolomeev

Thank you for your contribution, but your text is very short, unsourced, you don't explain why the person is notable. No interwiki.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The text looks strange, please correct.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Trivial edits

Hi, I noticed that you made an edit to E. O. Wilson where many of the paragraphs changed only by (undesirably) removing a space at the end (etc). This wastes editorial time as we check that ... nothing significant has happened. Would be really grateful if you'd abstain from this! Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed a typo (1962->1952), and fixing the double spacing issue is a completely ok edit. Thanks for making Wikipedia a place I keep coming back to by reminding me of how hilariously stuck up Wikipedians are :) Ethanbas (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at George H. W. Bush. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I was just testing Wikipedia's response to vandalism of the sort. I reverted all of my nonconstructive edits within half a minute of performing them. Ethanbas (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Jane Street Capital. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't attack anyone personally on the Jane Street Capital article. Ethanbas (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You called Haeinous a "dimwit, low iq amateur" in this edit. Edit summaries such as "fuck off piece of shit" and "fuck off shill" [2], [3] are inapporpirate, even if likely justified in the last two diffs. You can revert and edit without insulting other editors. If you cannot, there is a chance you'll be blocked per our no personal attacks policy. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

To add to Patar knight's remark above, regardless of whether or not you consider those edit summaries to be personal attacks, it would be hard to argue that they are not in breach of WP:CIV:

zazpot (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

on Jane Street, it was a general insult against Wikipedia editors. I never mentioned specifically Haeinous, and I never searched up who made that edit (this is the first time I've ever seen his/her name). my insult (which was not against anyone in specific) was made in good faith, fairly lighthearted I thought. as for those other insults, I will refrain in the future from writing things like that, although all three of them "deserved" it so to speak (repeated vandalism on Inglemoor High School, and literal shilling on the other pages, as you pointed out). why so serious guys, I was having a bit of fun :P Ethanbas (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Fun for you, maybe. For me, as a Wikipedia editor, even though I wasn't responsible for any of the edits you criticised, reading the edit comments of yours that Patar knight highlighted was definitely not fun at all. As for the vandalism on the Inglemoor High School and Form 1099 articles: in general, if you want to respond to vandalism more appropriately, please start by following the guide for that. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ethanbas. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Public image of Donald Trump for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Public image of Donald Trump 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/Public image of Donald Trump 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. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Headsplitting

The article Headsplitting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Procedure does not appear in reliable sources. Only sources that can be found are non-RS. It does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Headsplitting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Headsplitting 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/Headsplitting 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016 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 Joshualouie711 -- Joshualouie711 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016

The article Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016 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 Joshualouie711 -- Joshualouie711 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hebron shooting incident

Hello Ethanbas. About your recent addition of tags to the article. When tagging, it is normal to open a discussion on the talk page where you explain your concerns. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

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 Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

The Hebron shooting incident falls under this arbitration case. Just making you aware of the rules of the road in this topic area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (List of plans to replace the Patient Protection and Affordabl Care Act) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of plans to replace the Patient Protection and Affordabl Care Act, Ethanbas!

Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

yup I know https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=759233964 Ethanbas (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not an attack page, this is a page about an ongoing event. Feel free to change the name if you feel it's inappropriate; actually I'll go ahead and change the name now. Ethanbas (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with PissGate. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Donald Trump "compromised" claims. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

DS alert - American Politics 2

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. The article Donald Trump "compromised" claims which you created recently is very problematic, both in the context of the American Politics 2 arbitration case and BLP policy more generally. As you are no doubt aware, it is currently nominated for deletion, with many calling for speedy deletion under criterion G10. It would also be subject to action under the discretionary sanctions authorised for articles related to post-1932 American politics, if you had been previously warned about them.

GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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. Sorry for pasting lots of templates on your page - this alert is also relevant to your recent article creations and the formalities have to be observed.

GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Fifth-wave feminism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fifth-wave feminism 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/Fifth-wave feminism 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. Kaldari (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vote-a-rama

A tag has been placed on Vote-a-rama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://politicaldictionary.com/words/vote-a-rama/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 18:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Vote-a-rama for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vote-a-rama 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/Vote-a-rama 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. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonah Ostroff

A tag has been placed on Jonah Ostroff 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 person or group of people, but it 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 removed 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. Υπογράφω (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Protests against George W. Bush) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Protests against George W. Bush, Ethanbas!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Protests against Barack Obama) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Protests against Barack Obama, Ethanbas!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Mowing the lawn

It's not the lawn I'm worried about. It's the weeds. Eventually the weeds will take over. Its what they do. I may not last long as a gardener there. Good luck. Buster Seven Talk 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency

An article that you have been involved in editing—Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Protests against Donald Trump#Protests during Trump's presidency, 2017 Women's March and List of 2017 Women's March locations. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Protests against Donald Trump#Protests during Trump's presidency, 2017 Women's March and List of 2017 Women's March locations – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Trump Administration Border Wall

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Trump Administration Border Wall. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Mexico–United States barrier. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Mexico–United States barrier – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JamesG5 (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Penile pain

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Penile pain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JamesG5 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vaginal pain

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Vaginal pain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JamesG5 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Penile strangulation

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Penile strangulation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Penile injury. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Penile injury – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JamesG5 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Genital pain. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JamesG5 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating multiple no content articles

RE your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital pain, first of all taking sections of content from existing pages, pasting all of that content to a new page and declaring it noteworthy on its own will require a fair degree of justification, just as was noted to you in several political articles. Second, if you're going to work on a series of articles do drafts & finish them before posting, or better yet use AfD so they can be reviewed for suitability. Creating a half dozen mostly empty articles full of "see also" will go nowhere. Also, creating articles that duplicate existing content and are basically just reposts of other lists simply adds pages and confusion without value. JamesG5 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

RE your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush, "Hey, these stubs are almost always notable, and I create them because either I plan to improve them in the future, or as a notice for Wikipedia editors that an article should be created," like I said that is NOT how Wikipedia works. Creating a basically empty article full of redirects & copied lists from other existing pages is a straight up Speedy deletion category. You don't put other editors on notice to do something by creating empty, useless, cluttering articles, either. If you feel an article should exist use WP:AFC or the Draft space and create the article. Post it when it's something complete, not a rough sketch. JamesG5 (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

JamesG5, see WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Notability decides what warrants a separate article, and notability does not depend on the current state of a page. Riceissa (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Riceissa I didn't say anything about notability. I said that creating a basically empty page, especially creating an entire set or series of them on a topic, in some cases by breaking existing redirects, and filling them with copy/paste identical info from existing articles is not a good process, it leads to clutter and abandoned useless pages. Ditto for creating a basically empty stub that adds nothing to existing articles with no plans other than hoping someone else comes along and does something with it. The only reason I used the word "noteworthy" was in regards to literally duplicating a section of an existing page and breaking a redirect to post it and then saying "but it's noteworthy" without showing it to be so. This is not a content farm. JamesG5 (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you justify that the process "leads to clutter and abandoned useless pages"? Jim O'Neill (investor) and Timeline of protests against Donald Trump were both started as stubs by Ethanbas and are anything but "abandoned useless". Riceissa (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Some other recent examples: Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals Gregg Phillips Cheer up James! Life's good :) Ethanbas (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush 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/Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush 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. --Nevé –selbert 17:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at AfD

With all due respect, it should not fall on me to move your comments to the appropriate setting. Add your comments to the bottom, and I shan't revert again.--Nevé –selbert 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Behavior "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith" "It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation" You do *not* remove the comments of other people just because you don't like how they're structured. You *are* allowed to restructure the comments. You like invoking Wikipedia's policies and "essays", but you clearly don't know them all that well! -Ethanbas (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Protests against Barack Obama

A tag has been placed on Protests against Barack Obama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This page was created after the Trump inauguration protests, but it is missing any valid sources and seems to be a hoax implying, that such protests occur during many presidencies. These claims are obviously invented - the article itself states that the climate-protests (as well as the Libya protests) are not against Obama himself, but against his policy. The Tea Party protests already have an extra Wikipedia article, therefore there is no need for this one.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Johannnes89 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your misuse of Twinkle

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. --Nevé –selbert 12:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How would I know you're a regular editor when you're not acting like one? Ethanbas (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I was going to ask you the same question

.--Nevé –selbert 22:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just bold with article creation, something like User:Ethanbas/Userboxes/Deletionism :) -Ethanbas (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Protests against Barack Obama

The article Protests against Barack Obama has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page was created after the Trump inauguration protests, but it is missing any valid sources and seems to be a hoax implying, that such protests occur during many presidencies. These claims are obviously invented - the article itself states that the climate-protests (as well as the Libya protests) are not against Obama himself, but against his policy. The Tea Party protests already have an extra Wikipedia article, therefore there is no need for this one.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Protests against Barack Obama for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Protests against Barack Obama 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/Protests against Barack Obama 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. JMHamo (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidency timelines

Are you seriously going to create half-empty timelines for every single president, just for the sake of doing so? You need to slow down.--Nevé –selbert 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern presidents are done. Eventually though, that's the idea. How about you go contribute to Wikipedia for once? Or maybe just go bug editors on another part of Wikipedia. Ethanbas (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethan, as has been pointed out before, just throwing up half done projects is an issue. More so since you're being paid to create pages here. Wikipedia is not intended to be Buzzfeed. It may be good for you to create listicles and clickbait articles on genital issues, but it's not what this site is intended to be used for. JamesG5 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the articles I create get deleted, and that's fine; that's what an AfD is for. Other articles of mine that get AfD'd don't get deleted. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the presidency of George W. Bush, you can see there is a broad consensus for keeping that article, and for creating other presidential timelines, which is why I'm creating other presidential timelines. Also, to be clear, I'm not getting paid to create these articles; Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016 was the last time I got paid to create an article. -Ethanbas (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus to keep that one, but as noted in other discussions the issue is that constantly throwing stuff up just to see if it will stick, or putting up half finished articles, especially of content copied from elsewhere that's basically just a list, and "hoping" (your words) another editor will finish it will result in a lot more speedies & AfDs and work for the admins. Why not focus instead on making one complete quality article at a time and finishing it instead of spamming out multiple partials? JamesG5 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I realized that for the presidential timelines, I should at the very minimum put a few items for each year of the president. I don't immediately create a complete article because that's hard work that might be lost due to an AfD! Creating a complete article would increase the chance of survival under an AfD, but creating a complete timeline is like 100 times more work than just starting a basic one. And, for the presidential timeline articles, I didn't copy content from elsewhere on Wikipedia. Stop being so grumpy! :) -Ethanbas (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

While I applaud your efforts, I would like to suggest that you not create any more presidency TLs until the ones you've recently created are fleshed-out more (much more, with numerous entries in each year plus images). I too (like JamesG5) would rather that you focus on making the articles you've already started into quality articles, instead of churning out additional mostly empty stubs. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, see User:Ethanbas/Timeline of the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. I won't make any new presidential timelines for now. -Ethanbas (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

test

Ethanbas^talk 21:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of 4chan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of 4chan 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/Timeline of 4chan 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. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Genital pain

I saw the AfD about your article on genital pain. How are the drafts coming along for that page and the three more specific ones? Is there anything I can do to help? I agree with your aim for the set of articles. I don't have any expertise on the subject but would be happy to try making a version of genital pain that duplicates less content and gives some structure that other editors could contribute too (e.g. an intro, a stub section on differential diagnosis, some verbiage around the links to more specific pages); I wouldn't want to interfere with the work you're doing though, so let me know. Mortee (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mortee, thanks for supporting the existence of those (or at least some of those) articles, namely genital pain, penile strangulation, vaginal pain, and penile pain (I think). I've been pretty busy with other work on Wikipedia (namely political US president articles), and I'm busy with non-Wikipedia life as well, so I won't have time to work on these genital pain articles anytime soon. Feel free to do whatever you want with the articles! I think the easiest ones to work on so that they are kept are penile pain and genital pain (vaginal pain is harder to add content to, and penile strangulation doesn't have as much to add to it as I thought it would). Do whatever you want! I have copies of the current articles saved up in my user space, so if you don't want to work on any of them now and they probably get deleted, that's fine. Thanks for not being a deletionist! -Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, so penile strangulation got remerged onto the main penile injury (I supported that merge), so penile strangulation isn't a problem anymore. Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've added this to my to do list. I think you have the right idea with these articles, expanding the topics to cover more than just causes. I probably won't get to them soon and it looks like the AfD is going to result in these going back to being redirects, but hopefully, eventually, we or others can build this out. Also, "penile strangulation isn't a problem anymore" is good news! Haha :) Mortee (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas, Mortee I would like to help out also. I created the article List of causes of genital pain only as a way to identify those topics that really need to have their own articles. I do this all the time to help me find what topics need their own articles. I found the discussion about the merge too late to comment but if I had commented, I would have supported the creation of a separate article on penile pain because it deserves more attention than just a listing in a list article. I would like to suggest that one us 're-create' a draft of an article on penile pain in someone's sandbox. What do you think?

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 20:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bfpage, the article for penile pain stayed, it can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_pain. Penile strangulation, genital pain, and vaginal pain all got merged I believe. Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Akatombo

The article Akatombo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not say enough to indicate what is notable or characteristic about the song. No references.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Asuka vs Rei

The article Asuka vs Rei has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references. No evidence of notability. Suggest merging into Neon Genesis Evangelion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Gondola (meme) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gondola (meme). Since you had some involvement with the Gondola (meme) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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

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

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Revoked due to apparent inability to distinguish vandalism from other types of edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Laura and John Arnold Foundation‎ 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. Jytdog (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEAT

You need to start being much more careful not to fall afoul of WP:MEAT with regard to other accounts likee User:Riceissa. I am going to review your edits and if I find more edits like what you just did, I will be taking you to ANI and seeking an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you feel a need to harass fellow Wikipedians, Jytdog? Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not harassing anybody. Take what I wrote above seriously, and what I wrote on the foundation talk page. You are behaving and editing in ways that violate core policies. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but *you* are my friend! Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Only warning

If you attack and threaten editors again as you did on User talk:Jytdog, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC).

Yes, you like blocking people, everyone know that. Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tolerant place and people can be confused into thinking that anything goes. That is not correct. Comments such as "searching your username on Google brings up some interesting results ... I'll make sure everyonee knows about you" (diff) are totally unacceptable and will result in a long block if repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How is that unacceptable? Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't recognise that as WP: HARASSMENT then maybe you don't belong here. If I see you doing it I'll block you myself. Read the link. Doug Weller talk 06:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I sent you some Baklava, Doug Weller. Enjoy! Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

AFC Redirects

Thanks for helping out at AfC redirects. If you could remember to close the requests when you make a redirect, it would be helpful to other reviewers. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey TonyBallioni, I knew that, so today I tried to take care of it. I put this script here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ethanbas/common.js, and added myself to the list of Wikipedia article for creation project participants. Unfortunately, the script isn't working for me. I have no idea why it's not working, as everything seems like it should work. Javascript works, and other Javascript based Wikipedia things work for me; nothing in my preferences makes this not work; and I followed all the instructions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhantomTech/scripts/AFCRHS.js. Do you have any idea? User:Riceissa told me it worked for him when he set it up today. Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I used a mac today for this, and tried it on chrome and safari, and neither worked. On android phone, from chrome, it didn't work either. Issa said it worked for him with everything he tried (linux OS, different browsers all worked). Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging KGirlTrucker81^huh?, relevant actor. Sorry for having made you clean up after my mess :P Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. That's the script that I use, and it has been working for me today. Wish I could be of more help here. Scripts and tech stuff isn't my strong suite. If they work for me, I'm happy, but if they don't, I tend to do it manually. And my thanks was serious, KGT has had it under control for a while, but there are more requests pouring in recently, so more help is definitely needed there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I use both AFC/R helper scripts, but I only use the PhatomTech script when it's only one request. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Timeline of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Timeline of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ethanbas!

Wikipedia editor TonyBallioni just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. For FDR content, the non-major events, I copied over from other articles on wikipedia. Let me find the sources they used. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, please do not start any more presidential timelines until the ones you've already started (10 now) are more complete, both in terms of events and individual citations. Put your focus there rather than on churning out new timeline stubs. Drdpw (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Also User:Drdpw, do you know a place on Wikipedia where I can say, here are some US presidential timelines guys, is anyone interested? Those timelines are quite a bit of work if we want them to be complete (I do want them to be complete). Ethanbas ^(talk) 09:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start with the participants of Project U.S. Presidents, or post a request on theProject American Politics talk page (or contact project participants directly about helping you out). Another thing you could do is ask for input and help from editors who regularly contribute to a specific president's primary article. Hope these leads bear some fruit. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing those out Drdpw. I'll post notices there, and perhaps in other places. I'm holding off on creating presidential timelines for a bit, like I said I would, at least for now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Febuary 2017

This is an official admin notice.
The fact that you may have declared yourself as a paid editor does not give you the right to be in a position where you could eventually approve your own articles. Please refrain from constantly adding yourself to the list of AfC reviewers again until a discussion involving established volunteers has taken place. If you do, you may risk having your editing privileges restricted. Thank you Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

February 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andy Baukol

The article Andy Baukol has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 11:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Akatombo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akatombo 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/Akatombo 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Test

Pinging Riceissaaaa Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirming that I received this ping. Riceissa (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

bip blap blam Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 16:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

2017-02-23

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Montenegro attempted coup. Montenegro attempted coup is notability (all info included in target article 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis#Alleged coup attempt). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This seems like a single purpose account. TaaniOk (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are unfounded. Your edits have been abolished Onel5969. Follow the rules notability and consensus. There is an article 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis#Alleged coup attempt. Be bold 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis#Alleged coup attempt. Follow the rules neutral point of view policy.TaaniOk (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ethanbas. Thank you. TaaniOk (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

You aren't following proper editing guidelines. You should start discussions when you make controversial edits and see if others agree on them; don't just revert and blank what others have done without reaching consensus first. For example Talk: 2015-16 Montenegrin crisis TaaniOk (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I stopped reverting TaaniOk's edit as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montenegro_attempted_coup&action=history, and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TaaniOk_reported_by_User:Ethanbas_.28Result:_Both_blocked_24_hours.29, where I say: "The user isn't letting up, and has blanked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montenegro_attempted_coup&redirect=no 5 times already; I don't want to run afoul of reverting too many times, so I'll let this stand, but it needs to be made clear to this user that an AfD is needed at this point, instead of blanking the page 5 times." So, I clearly *stopped* edit warring, and I get blocked? Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You made it sound in your report at the edit warring noticeboard that the other user was blanking the article, which would be vandalism and would have therefore exempted you from the edit warring policy. what was actually going on is that they were redirecting the article, and giving a reason why in their edit summary, so the edit warring policy still applies. That also means reporting them at WP:AIV as well was incorrect. You're both blocked for a day to stop this nonsense, please follow WP:BRD in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, wouldn't WP:BRD mean that the *other* user was in the wrong, not myself? Can you please just please take a look at the user's contributions? Look at this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2015%E2%80%9316_Montenegrin_crisis this is clearly a WP:SPA that doesn't even speak English! I'm not sure it's even a real human, maybe it's just a computer program that splices together random bits of text! Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is literally impossible for only one user to be involved in an edit war. You were both edit warring, you both got blocked for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox I stopped edit warring! Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you stopped edit warring and started filing reports wherein you misrepresented what was happening when you were edit warring, and accused the other user involved of vandalism, as well as of not being a human being, which you have just repeated again. I'd advise you to quit while you're still only blocked for one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-time disruptive editing and personal attacks, see all the warnings in your page history and this ANI thread. The edit warring for which you're currently under a short block was the last straw. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Indef block revoked. When I placed the block notice, I realized that you hadn't been alerted to the ANI thread. Probably because both you and TaaniOk were blocked for 24 hours by Beeblebrox a few minutes later. That's not an ideal situation, so I've undone the indef. But I hope you realize how lucky you've been, and how tired people are of your disruption. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

OK, I am done fighting with people. Thank you so much Bishonen. I am completely and utterly done. I know I'm a very pushy editor on Wikipedia, and clearly there is overwhelming opposition to my behavior. I am genuinely done this time. I plan to take a wikibreak, and when I come back, I won't engage in nonsense any longer. I do good stuff on Wikipedia, and I should stop doing the bad stuff I do. Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Words are words. If I engage in nonsense again, feel free to block me for a long time. Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Do not create articles in article space that are very incomplete. You may create articles in draft space or user space and edit them until they are fully referenced and will survive an Articles for Deletion nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You are out of WP:ROPE

You are formally warned (in accordance with this ANI report), for the absolute last time, to discontinue your disruptive editing. If you make another edit in violation of any conduct policy on this site, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely and without further warning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.