User talk:Baking Soda/Archive 1

Reference errors on 4 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Markov chain Monte Carlo page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=708304914 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F708304914%7CMarkov chain Monte Carlo%5D%5D Ask for help])

March 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Portal:Current events/2016 February 26. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Taking a look at page histories, it really looks like a war zone. I would like to let you know all those reverts were out of concern that some information might be lost. Should I come across a similar situation in the future, I will be resorting to one of methods mentioned in Dispute_resolution (3rd opinion, dispute resolution noticeboard, a request for mediation, or request for comment), even if other party is not responding. Have a nice day. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever you see an edit war, break off and discuss. I follow User:Ritchie333 (I admit that very occasionally I accidentally breach my self-imposed 1RR but I try not to!) As I'm happy you understand what the block is about and won't be continuing the war, I'm okay to unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:State leaders by year
Template:State leaders by year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Neve–selbert 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:State leaders by year listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:State leaders by year. Since you had some involvement with the Template:State leaders by year redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL
Will you have time to start the page List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any experience in creating pages nor any "expert" knowledge on the topic. Looking forward to improving article after it's creation. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for moving that discussion to the Lone Wolf talk page. It may take me a couple of days to find time to do this, my schedule has resumed a more usual (overcrowded) rhythm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It already exists: List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 2016 Rfc
Howdy. Just curious, are you seeking closure in order to have another Rfc? or just seeking closure with the idea that your proposal has consensus? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, not immediate closure, but at best time deems appropriate. I leave it to the uninvolved closing administrator to gauge if another RfC is required, which I strongly doubt.  Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you object to moving the entire discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Leaders by year? Your proposed changes (of which I vehemently oppose) would affect multiple articles, so this would be a good place to gain relevant & neutral traction via local consensus. In the meantime, however, I will continue to seek an early closure of the Rfc.--Neve–selbert 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, can you either voice your support or opposition for moving the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Leaders by year. I need notice.--Neve–selbert 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving discussion is disruptive. Please see BULLDOZERING, BLUDGEON. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen both of them. Have you? If you would like your proposed changes to be made not just on the 2016 article (but on all of the articles since 2013, 1993, or 1988) then we have no greater option but to move the discussion. Or would you just like to make the changes on the 2016 article, only? A clear answer, please. 2016 only or not?--Neve–selbert 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope of RfC is all pages with similar layout, foreign minster list pages included. If you have any doubts, feel free to inquire in appropriate section in RfC. Have a nice evening. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Very well, then. So, I shall be moving the whole discussion over to the WikiProject talk page, as your proposed changes do not just concern the article-in-question. We can notify all contributors of the original discussion in due time.--Neve–selbert 18:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , Kindly don't do so, disrupts discussion. Please wait till conclusion of RfC... Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the result of the Rfc, no changes will be considered or even implemented until a proper discussion takes place gauging local consensus at the associated WikiProject. You jumped the gun in skipping a local consensus solution, hence delegitamising the Rfc.--Neve–selbert 18:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is your interpretation, RfC result binding to all pages with similar layout. Feel free to inquire in a section in RfC.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And vice versa. No result is "binding" and consensus can change, read WP:VOTE. Of course, feel free to counter-inquire as to why you oppose common sense in moving the discussion to its appropriate WikiProject talk page for a wider local consensus in a section in Rfc.--Neve–selbert 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you decide to impose your changes after 12 March, I shall lead your route to WP:AE.--Neve–selbert 06:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above in comment, we are required to accept the result of the RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if the Rfc is blatantly illegitimate? I beg to differ.--Neve–selbert 17:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear. You are required to obey the result of an RfC. Specifically, You are required to obey the determination made by the closing administrator in his closing comments. If indeed the RfC is blatantly illegitimate, the closing admin will say so in his closing comments -- they are experts at this. If you think the closing admin (or non-admin - non-admin closures are allowed if the result is clear) got it wrong, we have a procedure for appealing the close and getting more admins looking at it. Nonetheless, you are required to obey the RfC until an appeal overturns it. Keep in mind that this goes both ways; it may very well end up that it is Spirit Ethanol who thinks the RfC closer got it wrong and you who thinks they got it right. Either way, we are all required to obey the result of an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Howdy SE. At the Rfc, I've presented 'clarification' survey, with a neutrally worded question. This isn't an attempt to de-legitimize the original question, but merely to clarify it & get confirmation from the posters. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:State leaders by year
Template:State leaders by year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Neve–selbert 18:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 3 or more links. thanks. didn't know that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA
Thanks for adding the other Wikiprojects to the header of Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. It is hard to edit anything at all about Palestine without entering the domain of WP:ARBPIA. Whether Palestine should be considered a state is certainly there. In my opinion WP:1RR applies to edits on ARBPIA-related material anywhere in article space. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC notifications
Hi! How did you choose the list of who to notify in the following edits? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . All users selected from history of pages: List of state leaders in 2016‎, List of state leaders in 2015, List of state leaders in 2014 with the exception of Sir Joseph, selected from an AfD debate. You are also invited to join RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the history of List of state leaders in 2016‎. Bogdan Uleia and Neve-selbert have both posted to that page recently, but only Bogdan Uleia got a notice. How did you choose who to notify? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, randomly selected form edit history of pages mentioned above, manually, not in an automated manner. Care to explain why are you interested? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a general "this is probably fine, but I want to check to make sure that WP:CANVAS is not being violated" question. I am not implying that you did anything wrong, but rather just checking. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You really seem desperate to get every Wikipedian possible for involvement in this Rfc. One question, if I may: Regards.--Neve–selbert 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your aim? If the Rfc closes eventually as no consensus (extremely likely) will you accept the result or advance to WP:RFM?
 * Just to make it clear, wanting a lot of editors to know about an RfC that is important to you is allowed, as long as WP:CANVAS is followed. Also, we are all required to accept the result of any RfC, so please WP:AGF. (Any editor can challenge an RfC close, but until the challenge is successful and the close is overturned, we are required to accept the result of the RfC) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA block
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation WP:1RR on the page List of state leaders in 2016, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * Hello, at the time of editing List of state leaders in 2016 I was neither aware of WP:ARBPIA nor the 1RR. Kindly note that I created an RfC here to resolve dispute. I don't plan on doing any more reverts awaiting the RfC result and in accordance with 1RR/3RR policy. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated to the other editor, who also said they were unaware of the ARBPIA restrictions, there is a notice on the article Talk page, the same page that you (belatedly) started an RfC. And every time you reverted the article, there was a warning at the top of the edit window about ARBPIA and 1RR. Finally, even without ARBPIA, you breached 3RR and you certainly knew you were edit warring on February 9 and continuing on the 11th.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , after thorough inspection, I couldn't find in Talk:List of state leaders in 2016 any ARBPIA warnings on the talk page and I clearly recall no warnings on top of edit page about ARBPIA and 1RR. Can you kindly double check. I would like to appeal this block with pledge that I wouldn't be doing any edits related to List of state leaders in 2016 till the conclusion of RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked you. You are correct about the Talk page and the warning when you edit the article. I have spent the last several minutes trying to figure out what I saw and where, but I've been unsuccessful thus far. I may continue to investigate my own error, but it's unfair to keep you blocked while I do so. My comments related to 3RR and edit warring are still apt, but that wasn't the basis of the block, so it would be inappropriate to retain the block based on something else. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your changes at the article-in-question, per WP:BRD. It would be best if you didn't make such changes again, until you get a consensus for it at the Rfc you've opened :) GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Your recent editing history at List of state leaders in 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Belated notice, apologies for that. --Neve–selbert 13:39, 11 February 2016 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neve-selbert (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO
Read the third paragraph. You are breaching policy. --Neve–selbert 13:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit will be undone after 12:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC). You are deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as per WP:POINT). On top of that, per WP:WEIGHT, the current revision is blatantly wrong and inflammatory. This edit was suddenly made out of the blue at 08:36 on 9 February—yet you are falsely making it look like I am the one imposing any provocative changes. We should be keeping the established status quo until any agreement is reached. Otherwise, the Rfc could indeed be biased in favour of no changes, an oxymoron in its own right. --Neve–selbert 14:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Edit_warring which you pointed me to, reverts just outside 24-hours are also violation of policy. Digging further into status quo policy...  Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the Before starting the process section of the Rfc guidelines, we should have thoroughly discussed the matter with any other parties on the related talk page, before jumping to an Rfc. You seem to exude poor management skills, and the Rfc was premature. I strongly suggest you withdraw the Rfc, and instead discuss the matter in a civilised way via normal discussion per WP:DR.--Neve–selbert 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Page moving
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to 2015 New Year's attack plots. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.AusLondonder (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, do not move an article to a title that doesn't follow MOS:DASH as you tried to do at Latakia offensive (2015–present). In fact, as you're relatively new, you might want to run all of your page move suggestions by the article Talk pages first for the immediate future. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will follow in the future. Fixed other page I recently renamed to Zika virus outbreak (2015—present) with MOS:DASH. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm AusLondonder. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you re-added this material, particularly that from The Sun and the Gatestone Institute, without discussing properly on talk AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Split
Quick note regarding this edit: per the template documentation we almost always use column width instead of a fixed number of columns, to allow for variance in screen sizes. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of concurrent and parallel programming languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haskell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 2016
Just curious. Why would you want to relist the Rfc, after it's closed? GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion still ongoing, with possibly more editors who might want to weigh in. A request has already been made at WP:AN for RfC closure.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic List of state leaders in 2016. Thank you.--Neve–selbert 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw your report. I duly promise not to make the edit again. I have opened a new Rfc, and you are surely welcome to comment on it.--Neve–selbert 13:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude.
Don't start an edit war, man. DON'T! If you start one, we can both end up blocked, dude! Zakawer (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive link
This archive link works fine Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

, Thanks! Submitted a bug report to User:Dispenser/Checklinks. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I know someone is building a bot to automatically add archive links for all urls. Hopefully it will be done soon. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping at Neve's talk
I've already left a note at EdJohnston's talk.--TMCk (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo
There was no consensus for moving the Kosovo entry from Serbia. If you would like the status quo to change as per Palestine, please discuss this on the talk page in a civilised and rational manner. Per WP:STATUSQUO policy, I had to revert your edit to the last revision by. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 10:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that a standalone Kosovo entry adheres to WP:STATUSQUO is absolute hogwash. From 1 January to 18 March, Kosovo stood underneath the Serbia entry. You then proceeded to change it on that Friday without any consensus for it whatsoever. You are laughing straight in the face of WP:STATUSQUO.--Neve–selbert 11:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Allama Iqbal Town
Why your are redirecting 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast to 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. The article 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast was created before 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. You also removed speedy deletion tag. Why?

2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast
You redirected the article 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast to 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. Im reverting your edit because it is nominated for deletion. Please don't revert my edit instead discuss on talk page.-- Musa  Talk  18:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , If necessary leave everything as it is until we have consensus in the talk page. I would prefer to have a preliminary merge of all necessary pages so that two aren't being amended separately. Can we at least achieve consensus before blindly charging around deleting everything. Merge all pages. Hold a discussion on Talk: 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. Achieve consensus. Move forward. tl;dr we need to work together not against each other.,  Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read this following section
See Palestinian National Authority. The Rfc applies to articles from 2013 onwards. Please respect the result of the Rfc.--Neve–selbert 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so now you have reverted me. Abiding by my self-imposed WP:1RR, I won't revert you again. Now, reply to me here. What is your reasoning?--Neve–selbert 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Topic is already under 1RR, please discuss on 2016 talk page if you have questions about consensus... Baking Soda (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, please kindly self-revert and discuss these proposed changes.--Neve–selbert 18:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , If you have any questions about RfC consensus results, feel free to inquire on 2016 page. Baking Soda (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:BRD! It says that "if your bold edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." Why are you so unable to just oblige with Wikipedia policy?--Neve–selbert 18:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)