User talk:Beloki

October 2012
Hello, I'm Mann jess. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Humanism without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Humanism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've undone your latest revert. Please be more careful as your edit rather "messed up" the text in a manner that I doubt you meant to do. Again please read WP:3rr and discuss your concerns in the talk page section that user Mann jess has started. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on the Young Turks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. E4024 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Firstly, vague references to apparent statements Cenk said in the past is not providing a source - by definition a source must be verifiable, what you are providing is so vague, it isn't. Secondly, you have now reached your third revert on The Young Turks article - which means one more revert within the next 24 hour period will probably result in a block per the three-revert rule. The fact that two editors have raised objections to your position ought to be a good indicator that it is now time for you to try and discuss the issue on the talk page; I myself have already opened a thread, on top of a previous one. Finally, being abusive won't get you anywhere - I won't be intimidated by such behaviour, and it will only serve to alienate people from you in a discussion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of sixteen hours for incivility and personal attacks. 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 adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --  tariq abjotu  04:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Findblogging for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. E4024 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Ana Kasparian, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, I'm Zntrip. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Zntrip 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Beloki! Just to clear up any confusion, the BBC article that you removed from the article does mention civilian deaths: Residents told the BBC that at least four civilians including a pregnant woman were killed and others wounded in cross-fire. Also, the French casualties listed in the infobox should say "2 killed" as two soldiers were reported killed (including the hostage, who is a member of the French military). It will also say "disputed" as Al-Shabaab disputes the claim that the hostage was killed. – Zntrip 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of the United States
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Argentina
May I ask the reason on this edit, removing the image I added without explanation? I really can't understand how there are images of Messi, Del Potro or Mónaco (which I don't say are wrong in there), and there can't be an image of the first argentine to become pope. Even if I like him or not, I can't deny he should be on the Argentina article. Greetings and sorry for my poor english, Lcsrns (Talk)'''  02:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White Brazilian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

5th Special Forces Regiment(SANDF)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 5th Special Forces Regiment(SANDF), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.recce.co.za/special-forces-history/5rr-5sfr-history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 5th Special Forces Regiment(SANDF)


A tag has been placed on 5th Special Forces Regiment(SANDF) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. 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 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 Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see 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 "Click here to 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. Revolution1221 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Touré
Hi. Thanks for adding that material to Touré. Just one point though: Using words like "claims" when referring to a biographical subject's accusations, ideas, arguments, criticisms; etc, violates WP:CLAIM, for reasons explained on that linked page. I just thought you might like to know. For now, though, don't worry, I fixed it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military of the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carrier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republican Guard (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Yasen Class.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yasen Class.jpg, which you've attributed to http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=255775. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ricky Gervais. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —  Richard  BB  08:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Demographics of the United States, you may be blocked from editing.

Mightymights (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, can you stop marking your edits as minor when they clearly aren't (i.e., simple copy edits, punctuation, etc)? --Mosmof (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Demographics of Oklahoma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Spanish, Cuban, Guatemalan, Mexican and Puerto Rican


 * Washington (state) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Cuban, Colombian, Guatemalan and Mexican


 * California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Puerto Rican


 * Colorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Connecticut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Delaware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Maryland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Mississippi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Nevada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Oklahoma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to 2010 Census


 * Tennessee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * West Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian


 * Wisconsin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to American Indian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alladale Wilderness Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

3RR
Hi. This is a message to let you know that you are about to breach 3RR on Somali people. Please refrain from edit warring. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jordy Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethel College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Ana Kasparian. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSE sanctions imposed
Your recent additions to Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian were a blatant violation of the biographies of living persons policy and were clearly intended to be degrading. Given this and the fact you have received BLP related warnings in the past, and that any reasonable person would know that the edits you made were unacceptable and would damage the encyclopedia - making them vandalism as well - I'm invoking WP:BLPSE and imposing a number of sanctions to make clear to you that such edits will not be tolerated here. The full sanction is as follows:

CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013: WP:BLPSE block
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

It has come to my attention that you have violated the above WP:BLPSE sanctions twice today as follows:


 * 1 - Violation of indefinite ban from editing the Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian articles (including talk pages).
 * 2 - Violation of a three month ban from editing all articles in which the subject is a living person and associated talk pages for three months. This was enacted on 14 July 2013, and expires on 14 October 2013.

As per standard practice, both edits violating the sanctions have been reverted. I am also blocking this account for a further two weeks to prevent and then deter further violations. Since the edits were minor and not in themselves problematic, I have decided, for now, not to extended the ban or give a block longer than the previous one. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

January 2014: Further block for sockpuppetry
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for 2 months (59 days). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 05:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

As you operated the account to evade the WP:BLPSE restrictions, including the imposed blocks, I am blocking this account for two months. Given the level of abuse involved and the failure of shorter blocks, I'm issuing a longer block on this occasion in the hope that it will deter further violations.

Since you bypassed the restrictions previously imposed under WP:BLPSE, I am re-setting and modifying them as follows:


 * 1) For sockpuppetry and evasion of blocks and sanctions, you are blocked for a period of 59 days (2 months).
 * 2) For showing a blatant disregard for WP:BLP policy, you are banned from editing all articles (including talk pages) in which the subject is a living person for an indefinite period.
 * 3) For the use of multiple accounts to evade previously imposed sanctions, you are restricted to editing only with the  account on the English Wikipedia for an indefinite period.

The above sanctions are to run concurrently. All previous WP:BLPSE sanctions imposed are superseded by the ones above. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 05:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014: Third block for sockpuppetry
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

With the discovery of as another sock-puppet of yours, along with your deception to try and draw my attention elsewhere, I think it is clear that you have no interest in following the sanctions imposed on you. Therefore I am amending the earlier restrictions so that you are now blocked for one year – the maximum length permitted under WP:BLPSE. The block will be re-set every time a violation occurs. The other restrictions will continue to run concurrently to the block, and you will still be bound by them if you are ever unblocked or the block elapses.

I think I should also note that from now that any edits by you that are done through block evasion will be aggressively reverted, even if they are constructive, as permitted under policy. Further admin actions may also be taken as needed. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
I am withdrawing all WP:BLPSE sanctions imposed on this account and instead imposing a conventional indefinite block as it seems clear now that you have no interest in following the policies of the English Wikipedia, making the imposition of specific sanctions pointless. The imposing of an indefinite block now means you are also personally de facto site banned from editing the English Wikipedia indefinitely. Any sock-puppets created by you will be blocked on site and any edits or articles created from them will be reverted and deleted respectively, irrespective of whether they were good or bad, as per the banning policy. The only exception to the site ban is the opportunity to appeal the block imposed through this user talk page. Please see WP:APPEAL for information on how to do this. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)