User talk:Cogaidh/Archive 1

Customer Service
If my actions are somehow a problem for you, please start a conversation here instead of a new section

Kalimpong subdivision has ceased to exist. Please read the reference: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/carved-out-of-darjeeling-kalimpong-a-district-today/articleshow/57137909.cms. It is a district now. All info needs to be shifted to Kalimpong district. Can you redirect the subdivision page to district page? Saildew (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure if a move is in order. Go on you talk page, type   and enter your query. An admin should come by and help you, because I'm not entirely knowledgeable in the area.

You deleted my comment. Who do you think you are? Emich2020 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, lose the attitude. I'm not vandalizing pages. Second of all, I removed it because it's not NPOV as well as not notable. If you want to include something in an artice, make sure it's not just appraising the person in question. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, UNSC Luke 1021, 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:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Appealing for other people
Hi - please don't appeal for other users. We can only accept and decide upon unblock requests from the editor who is blocked. Thank you -- samtar talk or stalk 20:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just saw your messages to Boing! - their reply is spot on, and I'd encourage you to take their advice --  samtar talk or stalk 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Winterysteppe. Thank you. Patient Zerotalk 11:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to assume good faith here; if the CU comes back negative, stale, or declined, I sincerely apologise for my conclusion-jumping behaviour, and would appreciate it if the situation was forgotten about. I'm a black-and-white thinker to say the least, and to me, it seemed all the evidence was there. Or you could just be a kid my age, trying to help out here. Which I'm pretty certain you're trying to do. I'm going to leave the final decision on CU usage to the admin there, of course. Best of luck with your test, as you mentioned at the SPI. Patient Zerotalk 18:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for apologizing; I assume most people wouldn't even reply to the person they accused if they were found incorrect. How long does it usually take for the results to come back? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not too long, depends on when Bbb23's online. He's the deciding admin on the case. Patient Zerotalk 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Wgolf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to John Galea (Musician) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

New page patrol
Hi and Welcome to Wikipedia. You recently tagged a dead person with blpprod. Only living people can be tagged with that. I see you are very new here and it is great you want to jump in and help but new page patrol requires experience and a solid grasp of all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as how to properly apply them. Please read WP:NPP and get some more editing under your belt. If you have any questions or need any help please feel free to contact me on my talk page. J bh Talk  14:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did not know the person was dead, honest mistake UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been going through your recent patrols and I have found several that are improperly done. For instance you tagged a geographic stub with content as a no content speedy and you opened a completely inappropriate AfD . Not to mention placing inappropriate maintinance tags. Patrolling new pages does no good if someone must go behind and check your work and fix stuff. I am really glad you want to help out here, we really need editors to review new pages but please get some more experience and learn out policies and guidelines. Specifically read WP:NPP, WP:BLP (very important!) WP:AFD, WP:PROD, WP:CSD, WP:GNG and the associated specific criteria. Also you need to learn how to check for copyright violations, know how to identify promotional content and how to recognize and handle violations of our Biographies of living persons policy. That last one is very important because real people can be harmed. Once you have done that participate in some WP:AFD discussions and spend some time doing Recent changes patrol.   J bh  Talk  15:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a break from doing it; It's kind of confusing and tedious anyway. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. It is that.  J bh  Talk  16:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Jbhunley. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Woodlawn subdivision, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. J bh Talk  15:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kamalika Chanda
Hi. Just to let you know. You reviewed the Kamalika Chanda article, telling the author it "does not qualify for deletion." However, it (very probably) does. It had been deleted just a few weeks before and it's up for deletion again. I'm not telling you this to rub your face in it or anything, just to let you know you've got to be careful with these things. I've made similar mistakes. Kind regards,  Yinta n  15:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shmuel Erlich
Dear UNSC Luke 1021!

First: sorry for my reduced english! You reviewed the article about Shmuel Erlich. Thanks for that! But you asked for adding an infobox. I found the template but it seems to me rather difficult. Don't you think, somebody could help with it? Perhaps you should know the following: I came to deWP one year ago. So I am a beginner! I wrote some articles and translated them for the enWP, this one a friend translated who came some weeks ago to WP. Templates are somewhat difficult for me although I give my best as you can see in the article I wrote about Gorna Bela Rechka. The infobox there took me 2 days work. This is why I ask for somebody adding the infobox. I do not understand all the things in the explanations of the template.

Best wishes --Andrea014 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are not required and it is typically a matter of aesthetics for the article creator although sometimes people will come by and put them in if they are not objected to. (There is a long running wiki-war over requireing infoboxes or not - silly but there is. @UNSC Luke you may want to simply point out that infoboxes exist to only editors writing their first article, if at all on while NPPing, or you could end up in dumb wiki-politics you did not know was there.) If you want an infobox ping me and I will put one together based on the information in the article. J bh  Talk  16:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh thank you very much Jbhunley! This helps me to understand what is going on. I already translated articles about two persons I wrote in the deWP and put them here and did not get such questions. No, please do not invest so much work if it is not a duty! It seems to me that in articles about a village an infobox is nice but in an article about a person? Well, if the person would be a VIP... But Erlich is no VIP! Best wishes --Andrea014 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Mohsen Khansari, UNSC Luke 1021.

Unfortunately Jbhunley has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"Please see noted in edit summaries. Changes in reviewing/tagging."

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

Some NPP stuff
A couple of things. WP:CSD only appplies to a specific set of subjects - in general, people, companies, bands, events - not words like Sensemaker. It was, however a copyvio - always check for copyright violations before you mark a page reviewed. Ther are some tools, including a link to a copyvio detector, which you may find useful on my Work page under NPP Tools. You may also find adding  which tells you if an article has been AfDd or deleted in the past and   which adds a stub sorting tool to your menu bar. WP:MOREMENU should add an Expand bare references and Copyvio detection tool to your meme under Page --> Tools. You should also look at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications which is discussing qualifications for the new reviewer right which will restrict access to NPP Tool and the mark page reviewed button. J bh Talk  16:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about all these mistakes I'm making. I read through all the how-to pages about how to patrol pages, but I still thought that infoboxes were necessary, because all the pages I've read have had infoboxes. I'll continue to monitor articles, but I'll skip anything I don't know for sure, to stay on the safe side. I'm sure that'll make your job easier as well! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a learning curve. That is why I point stuff out to you. I've been going over your curation log and giving articles a second look over. If I see stuff I try to leave an explanation in the edit summary of changes or sometimes unreview to send you a note and re-review so you can see what i think is proper (note it is just what I think is right others may have a different opinion) What I would suggest is go through the NPP Feed and pick off the low hanging fruit - things that are obvious. Or when you review, try to fix everything you can, like categories, bare links, find some references, stub sort, format, add an infobox if you think it is needed (don't re-add if someone reverts is - like I said dumb wiki-politics) etc. That will help you really understand what it take to make an article and it will become much easier to see what is missing as you review more difficult ones. When you tag a page please put something in the message to editor box otherwise they do not get a notice that tags were placed on the article. I got dinged for not doing that when I started by another reviewer. I generally use something like "Please consider returning to the article to address these issues". I also keep all articles I tag on my watch list for a while, particularly ones that are deletion tagged. That way I can see what happens and what others do that I may have missed or screwed up on. I know there is a lot of picky stuff but once an article passes through review it is possible that no editor will see it again for months or even years. So it is very important not to miss stuff. The top 3 being 1) violations of WP:BLP policy - because it affects real living people 2) WP:COPYVIO - for obvious reasons 3) identifying and removing spam, advertising and promotional content - because Wikipedia is usually in the top couple search results try to exploit it for advertising. It is also necessary to get rid of non-notable cruft but those three things are what must not slip through. Cheers! J bh  Talk  16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. Also, if you tag something but you are not sure it is completely reviewed you can simply uncheck the green check and it will put it back in the queue. J bh  Talk  17:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The RfC I linked above will institute a 90 day 500 edit minimum for access to NPP, probably in a few weeks. If, when the tools are shut off, you are still interested in NPP please let me know. I will be happy to work with you to get up to speed for the new user right. Also, re Articles for deletion/Push Notification. Only nominate articles at AfD for deletion. In this case you should have used merge to suggest the merge. I would suggest that you withdraw the nomination by typing   and then placing   on the page and   on the target article. Remember when you want to link a Wikipedia page use   not  . When you do give raw links, like diffs or permalinks make sure to enclose them in [], like this  . Do not be discouraged, everyone makes errors. The key is not to repeat them and to minimize the number by looking for examples of what you want to do or asking questions. The editor who essentially runs NPP recently said NPP is the most specialized job on Wikipedia next to an administrator and requires a similar knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes. Finally, to get a better idea of notability try participating in and watching some WP:AFD discussions. WP:MFD - Miscellany for deletion and WP:RFD Redirects for discussion will help you with non-article pages and redirects, respectively. Cheers.   J bh  Talk  12:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Push technology may be worth considering as a merge target. All of these could stand better sourcing so adding some references would be good as well. J bh  Talk  12:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, ! I'll continue to learn about it, hopefully making less mistakes! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In solidarity by another beginner: all the best! --Andrea014 (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Jbhunley. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Push Notification, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. J bh Talk  12:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for WikiProject Tanks
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;WikiProject Tanks&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. NgYShung huh? 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Operation Tanks
We have moved from a WP to a special project of Milhist, feel free to add yourself as a participant. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  01:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

USS Intrepid (CV-11)
Hi, As some quick suggestions for developing this article: I hope that helps. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Convert the timeline into prose, and consider the balance of coverage (there seems to be little about her involvement in the Vietnam War, and possibly a bit much on her use as a museum ship)
 * Reference all the key facts (it would be easiest to use your judgement about what these are than to have someone else do so)
 * If nothing better is available, use the ship's DANFS entry as a reference - though note that this source has problems with bias and self-censorship, so it's only a starting point. As far as I'm aware, DANFS is reliable for saying where the ship was and what it was doing at various times. It's also a public domain source, so its text can be copied across (though this should be properly attributed, of course).

Thanks!
Thanks so much for the barn star for the Battle of Mosul article! I'm so glad to know it's appreciated and more importantly, that it was a good source to help you with your paper!!! Thank you for your help on that page too. Good luck this semester! —Мандичка YO 😜 14:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ain Dubai
http://whatson.ae/dubai/2016/07/dubai-eye-renamed-ain-eye/

82.132.212.108 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

RFA
I've temporarily removed your RFA from the main RFA page so you can think about this. There is a zero percent chance of success. "Because Donald Trump" is not an impressive reason. You have 474 edits. People with 20 times that are often opposed as "too few edits". You haven't been around very long, most people insist on 1-2 years. Because there is no chance of success, people tend to say rude things in their oppose votes. And even if they didn't, it would be kind of a waste of time, right? Let me know if you're OK with not doing this now, and I'll just delete your RFA page so it doesn't really "count". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another point to please consider is that if you continue editing (I hope you will!), at some point you may think about a "real" RfA, and it won't be at all helpful to have an early non-serious one on your record. Still another point to consider is that regardless of experience level, it's never good to start one's RfA while one has an "I'm busy right now" template on his or her talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just put a vote on the page before Floquenbeam delisted it. I wholeheartedly concur with both messages above. My comment on the RFA stands; you are getting your feet wet in the right areas of the encyclopedia that some day this could be a possibility. This RFA is not going to help that case.  Go  Phightins  !  20:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I just saw your comment that this was a "semi joke request". People hate that; they tend to take RFA much more seriously than necessary, and it really would damage your chances further down the line. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now is a great time to learn about the costs of being WP:POINTy. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeating here (for posterity) what I just said on my talk page. I've deleted the RFA page, and chalked this up to newbie indiscretion. Also, you may want to take a look at WP:NOTYET to get an idea of what's expected of an RFA candidate, and what just happened here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I read all of the stuff, I just wanted to game the system (in a non-rulebreaking way). It was basically a social experiment to see how people would react. I was satisfied with the results, because if the reaction was not like this I would be somewhat concerned about the community of Wikipedia. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm, OK... Social experiments are also something people really hate around here, so I wouldn't recommend doing something else like it.  It's a prickly group. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just testing the waters, it won't happen again. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Astroneer
Please don't create test pages.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a test page, I was starting an actual page but I had to leave so I just wrote 'test'. Not actually a test. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You have responses.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw, thank you. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Raseiniai at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Battle of Raseiniai
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Raseiniai at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kosack (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. Thank you  for your  participation  at RfA. Here's is something that will help  you make your votes in future when you are more ready  to  participate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope nobody has suggested to you that simple support votes are given anything less than full weight. Bureaucrats don't ignore simple support votes without elaboration, and there is no 'discount' on such votes. For future reference, please don't make comments like this. 15:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I said something there at the RFA, but see others have commented here. Asking individual voters to explain themselves is disruptive.  You aren't adding information, you are trying to introduce doubt in someone else's vote, which is a form of badgering.  Please stop it.  You are obviously not familiar enough with the process to judge the quality of other's votes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to cause trouble here, I'm just trying to point something out based on something a bunch of other people harassed me about on the last RfA (see here). I was just trying to do the right thing, and I decided to use 'advice' that was given to me. Apparently this 'advice' is false, which means that I was given false information. I'm still upset about how I was treated then, and this is just making it worse (finding out they were unjust). Sorry if I'm venting all of my Wikipedia problems to you but it's annoying. Thank you for informing me about this. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, we just want to head off problems before they get worse. At RFA, you are of course welcome to !vote.  You are welcome to politely ask for a diff if someone is making an outrageous claim in their vote.  If you've already made up your mind, then asking isn't necessary.  For the most part, we each just vote, and trust the Crats to sort it out without assuming what they will accept or not accept as a vote.  That is their discretion, it is not dictated by policy. As for your vote, you had every right to make it and you could have ignored any questions regarding it.  Know that experience with images isn't going to be serious criteria with admin since most admin don't work with images, so I wouldn't be shocked if the closing Crat gave it little weight.  Still, vote how you want. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will vote, I'm just waiting on him to answer my questions. Thanks! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 16:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that you were probably basing your comments on something that had been said to you, and I'm sorry that you were unfortunately misdirected. The example you give, however, is an oppose vote, and yes they need to be explained more fully. A "support" vote without detailed explanation is understood to mean "I agree with the reason for nomination". Perhaps it might be useful to also consider that administrators are not expected to be able to do everything or participate everywhere in the project; perhaps a more accurate description is that a good administrator knows their limits and does not carry out tasks that are outside of what they consider their personal scope or interest (e.g., many people choose not to upload images, participate in particular types of discussion such as CfD, or edit within certain topic areas). It's a big project with millions of articles and thousands of tasks (most of which don't require adminship), and nobody is expected to be a master of all. I rarely upload images, for example: not because I don't know how, but because I don't take photos that I feel are suitable for sharing on Wikipedia. I've never joined a WikiProject, and I never will, but I'm supportive of the work of many of them (Medicine and Military History particularly come to mind). Now, I'll grant that after nearly 11 years on the project, I'm going to have a better sense of where I'm interested in spending my time and energy than you might have, and I've already explored many of the areas that you're just now discovering. I hope that you'll keep exploring and trying things, and that us "oldies" don't annoy you to the point that you stop growing in your wiki-experience. Risker (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you consider withdrawing this question? I can't even think of a single circumstance when an editors user rights could have any relationship to their participation in Wikiprojects, and it displays a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates—with a couple of exceptions like WP:MED and WP:MILHIST virtually all of them are moribund, and unless someone's interests lie in one of the few areas where projects are still active, it's unreasonable to expect them to join a dead project to satisfy an arbitrary criterion you've made up. (As with Risker, I'm not a member of any project, nor is it likely I ever will be, but it doesn't mean I oppose the concept.) I've no doubt of your good intent, but a question like this puts candidates in an impossible position, since they don't want to appear rude by telling you you've misunderstood how Wikipedia operates but equally feel it would be inappropriate to ignore you. &#8209; Iridescent 16:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * From another 'oldie' (both here and in real life): Endorsing 's comment and the other messages above, participation at RfA which is not really appropriate is what discourages users of the right calibre from wanting to run at RfA. We are in desperate need of more admins and making RfA a more friendly and welcoming  environment would help enormously. Do please now read WP:RFAV, and this page which is also widely consulted and which will also give you more ideas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello UNSC Luke 1021: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎅 Patient Crimbo 🎅 grotto presents 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thank you very much, and best wishes to you too. I'm sorry I can't be more positive about your intended bid for adminship, but I fear the community would not treat you too kindly. Perhaps in another year's time. Take care, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK. Thanks for the advice, sir, and have a great Christmas. 🎅 Patient Crimbo 🎅 grotto presents 08:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

ORCP
Please do not. I think it's inappropriate. Frankly, I think you're still too new to Wikipedia to be voicing your opinion there. I appreciate your enthusiasm but just because you think something is true or is a good idea doesn't mean it is. You can learn a lot more by reading what more experienced Wikipedians say and do. In an environment like ORCP, your unqualified opinion simply muddies the waters. That you thought it appropriate to ask for blunt opinions about someone else shows me you hadn't thought the process through. Contributing to Wikipedia, generally, does not mean adding your two cents to every conversation you see. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Never mind; I see this has been addressed. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Participation in the RFA space
Hello, UNSC Luke 1021. I wanted to take this opportunity to raise with you some issues about your involvement in various RFA matters. Over the past 30 days, on numerous occasions, editors have expressed concerns about actions you've taken in the RFA space. Beginning with your own RFA which you acknowledged was a test to "game the system" but something borderline disruptive in terms of using a community venue for your own personal experimentation. You also participated in Godsy's RFA which drew a lengthy conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Godsy. A second conversation was started on your user talk page where issues such as comments you've made (pointed out by Risker) and requests for you to withdraw certain questions (pointed out by Kundpung). The fact that you had to clarify you're "not trying to cause trouble here" and others had to start off with "we just want to head off problems before they get worse" is an indication that there both in contention and controversy around a lot of the actions you've taken in and around RFA. Finally, you started a candidate review for someone else at ORCP without their express consent. The instructions on the page clearly are written for candidates to themselves add their names to the page and it should be a mere matter general courtesy to discuss with an editor something that would affect them especially when it's to invite the community to evaluate them. I've brought these issues to your attention and I urge you to cautiously work in the RFA space without further disruption. Mkdw talk 23:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will, on my own consent, abstain from all RfA-related inclusions, such as personal RfAs and ORCPs, for an entire month, which will be until January 20th, 2017, 12:00AM EST. The sole exception shall be asking questions and voting on unrelated RfAs, as well as unrelated ORCPs. Do you agree that this is a good solution to the problem? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 00:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * UNSC Luke 1021, I don't believe the issue is about taking break from RFA. It's more about how you're conducting yourself there. If you acknowledge the above and other feedback that has been given to you and we see it affect how you involve yourself at RFA, then I think that's all the assurance the community would need. There's room for change and discussion at RFA, but we need to know you're there because you want to constructively contribute and that you fully understand the process and what's trying to be accomplished. Mkdw talk 02:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this addresses the problem. Mkdw is being very diplomatic, as has everyone else, but let me help by putting it in plain Texas Talk, and just be blunt:  I think the community has been very patient and very kind in explaining what the problems are, but if you continue, you will either be blocked or topic banned from RFA.  Participating at RFA is simple: either you are helping the process, or you are hindering the process.  So far, you have done nothing but disrupt the process.  Perhaps you should just limit yourself to a single comment when !voting, and only after you have researched the candidate, which is what most people do anyway.  This means avoiding asking questions, and just use the information given.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As previously stated, I will take a one-month break from anything RfA related, with the sole exception of voting. But I still don't understand how asking a simple question (Wikiproject activity) could disrupt the RfA process. I understand my past actions and how they went, so I'm being different and asking reasonable, well structured questions for the RfA candidate. So far I've only been getting reasonable, well structured responses. Why do I not have a problem, nor does the candidate not have a problem, yet somehow one question is a problem to the 'general community'? What if I don't like how someone keeps asking about WP:IAR? Should I call them out for it? I don't see how it affects you just because I cast a vote in a less orthodox way. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 02:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary that you understand, only that you comply with community standards of behavior. I'm simply telling you the real world consequences.  It isn't that I like blocking, but I'm not one to hesitate either.  If you don't like how someone says something or ask something, you suck it up.  The world doesn't revolve around you.  RFA isn't about YOU.  Most people just do a little research and vote.  Since you have already caused disruption, if you were wise then what you would do is what everyone else does: just vote towards the end. after the questions have been asked and after you have read up on them.  I don't care how you vote as long as the vote is reasonable.  Or you can simply not vote at all.  The overwhelming majority of people do not vote, so you would be in good company. Regardless, you have run out of rope here, you've been coached plenty, and now it's time to act like an adult and be accountable for your actions.  I think we have babied you long enough.  Adapt or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, I'll semi-participate in an official, nonprovoking manner. I will only ask questions and vote when seen fit. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 12:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All these guys are respected senior editors and Administrators. I'm an ordinary editor - Joe Blow who nobody knows. Now, will you please just stop fucking around in RfA? It isn't playground. I see you like pranks - NOT there.  Leaky  Caldron  14:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I not just say I would stop? Can you please understand that I already said that I will do exactly what you want me to do? I'm intrigued by the fact that you felt it would be necessary to ask again, when the conversation was basically closed. Also, since when do I, and I quote, 'like pranks'? I ran one RfA as a newbie a few months ago and it was resolved without conflict. I don't see any other example of 'pranking' the RfA system. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they get their authority from reinforcing and visibly backing each other up as I commented about you here . Just take your own advice and don't bait them. At least one of them would block you, indeed, give you a site ban if they had their way. Leaky  Caldron  19:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I guess. It makes sense, and it's a tactic that works.  Maybe some of THESE guys need to be back on the RfA   UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked 8 days
Your question at the latest RFA indicates that you know you have been disruptive and seem to relish it. As such, I've blocked you long enough that you can't participate in the RFA. I'm debating going to WP:AN and simply request you be topic banned from RFA. The tone of your snide comment that leads the question makes it clear enough to me. Feel free to read WP:GAB if you seek an unblock, but unquestionably I would oppose the unblock. I'm tired of people disrupting RFA and you were given more guidance than you should have needed before this block. There is no excuse for the disruption, or the smart ass comment in the question you posted. Had it not already been answered, I would simply deleted it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to block as well for the same reason, and edit conflicted with Dennis. Please stay away from RfA or the next block will be longer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to disrupt the RfA process. In fact, as soon as I realized that I had fucked up I was on the way over to go remove my comment. If you gave me more than thirty seconds time between the final warning and the block, I would have revoked my vote. If you allow me to go and revoke my comment, I'll be happy to wait it out.


 * In all honesty I didn't even understand what you were trying to prevent me from doing until the final warning that occurred less than five minutes ago. I swear on my life this will not happen ever again. I completely, 100% understand what you mean now. I will no longer:
 * - Post under the 'Neutral' section: 'Waiting until my question is answered'
 * - Complain about specific issues that could possibly disrupt the process
 * - Make controversial statements such as #1 (see above)
 * I like WikiPedia, I really do. I don't 'relish' being warned and punished. I did NOT know I was being disruptive for that reason; I thought the disruption was mainly from the ORCP. I was not trying to make a snide comment, I was just upset that I would most likely be punished for something I didn't fully understand. The 'smart ass comment' was unintentional.


 * Please give me one more shot. Can I please have the benefit of the doubt, and I will not let it happen again. I promise. Should anything else come into light, I will not refute the subsequent block and/or permanent ban. I am sincerely sorry, but I'm telling the truth; I did not know that you were telling me not to announce my neutrality until further notice. No matter the response to my plea, I will not refute the results. If you refuse to unblock me, I will accept that. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Go sit it out for eight days. I'm surprised that the block was only 8 days and would fully recommend a complete topic ban. Your childish comments at the Rfa are not welcome. An Rfa is a highly stressful exercise for the candidate and you seem to have no respect for the process at all. I commend for this block. If you continue bickering, I'll not be surprised if they revoke your talk page access. Good bye and hope you don't do this again.  Lourdes  01:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An admin can't unilaterally topic ban someone that way, but I just proposed it at WP:AN so the community can. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Luke, if you don't understand, then you lack the competence to participate. I do not believe you.  I made it perfectly clear what the consequences would be and I have followed through.  You can't say you weren't warned.  I do not give false threats or play games.  Your fellow editors have better things to do than babysit you.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's just get this over with then: I will agree to have no privileges relating to editing in the RfA section of the non-mainspace editing, and I will not appeal this block for a full year (365 days time), but only IF I receive regular editing privileges back. I haven't caused any commotion related to mainspace editing, so I don't believe I should be blocked from that when all I do in the mainspace is make productive, helpful edits. I fully consent to my indefinite block from the RfAs, but only if my request is met. I know I'm in no position to negotiate, and beggers can't be choosers, but I believe that my request is reasonable and more than fair. Can we settle on an agreement? If you do not accept I will be more than happy to just wait the ban out. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 01:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming the community does topic ban you at WP:AN (about 24 hours or less), then I would be open to lifting the block early, as the ban would be in place and the block would no longer be needed. The whole purpose of the block is to prevent disruption, after all.  That ban means no RFA, not the main RFA, none of the talk pages.  If you did, the result would be a swift long term block.  You can appeal the RFA restriction in a year.  But first, lets see if it is adopted.  If it is adopted and I'm not around, any admin has my permission to use their best judgement and assume I would agree with whatever decision they make. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll wait for a community consensus then. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 01:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Luke, at the discussion linked below, I have suggested giving you the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to self-regulate, by refraining from participating at RFA until (a) you have at least 500 article edits and (b) after March 1 has passed, approximately equivalent to six months on the project. Do you think you would be willing and able to show that kind of self-restraint?  Risker (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that offer happily. Believe it or not, I don't like to cause controversy and I don't 'relish' disruptive behavior. In all honesty, I feel bad about causing a big problem for a bunch of admins when I could have just asked questions. It's too late now, but I'll accept your offer. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 12:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Luke from all things RFA
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Review

 * As an expediency thing, would you consider an unblock conditional on accepting a one year topic ban from RfA, the longest such a condition may last as per the unblock policy? ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea as it would show  a willingness to accept consensus and the onging discussion could simply  be closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it closed?
or, Is the TBAN discussion closed yet? I will abide by whatever decision is made, but I am just asking. I would not like to be perceived as being rude, but I would like to get back to editing. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have closed the discussion as follows :  is topic banned by the community for six months for editing, voting or commenting on RfA, all RfA related policies, guidelines, advice pages, and their talk pages, broadly construed. Any breach of this topic ban can result in a block without warning.


 * As this topic ban supersedes the block, I have unblocked you, but would reiterate you read the above topic ban text carefully in order to avoid a reblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this figured into your ban, as I dont see it mentioned (except by a non-admin), but he admitted that the RFA was an intentional prank "I ran once as a prank." on his userpage. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think it matters now; I was TBANned from the RfA and I was unblocked, so all is well in the world of Wikipedia. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 05:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for pranks. And the fact that we have had to put you under editing restrictions means that until children and young users realise that, all is far from well in the world of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that everything was ok, I meant that the TBAN was ok now because it was closed. I obviously won't run another prank RfA, or any prank for that matter. I mean that it's over with the RfA TBAN and everything turned out as expected. I've currently received one of the most extensive punishments allowed, so adding new info like that is negligible. The only way it could get worse is a ban from WikiPedia itself, which won't occur due to the given reasons. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 11:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Stop screwing around with your user talk page location
or you will be blocked indefinitely. Every time I see your name at a noticeboard or (now) on my watchlist it's because you're being an idiot. Stop wasting other people's time. This isn't a playground. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I... don't understand the problem? I'm very willing to comply but an explanation as to why might be helpful. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 18:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, why am I on your watchlist? Am I under some sort of uninformed surveillance by one or more administrator(s)? If I'm that much of a problem that I need to be monitored by administrators then a heads up would be pretty nice. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You do too understand the problem, as indicated by your comment at the top of this very page. Don't try to gaslight people by pretending that calling you on your near-constant pranks and social experiments is somehow confusing for you; if it really is confusing, then you are not competent to edit here, and I'll just indef block you for long-term disruption. You're on my watchlist because I previously had to get involved last year when you were screwing around with a joke RFA.  Last warning: any more low level trolling and you will be blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't spawn the problem to make a joke, I spawned the joke after the problem occurred. I was honestly attempting to move the page, but I couldn't move the user page. Noticing that entering the talk page and attempting to return to the user page would result in a dialogue that asks to make a new page, I found humor in this and was prompted by myself to make a joke. I was not trying to troll, I realized there was a problem, tried not to make it worse and instead added some humor so people wouldn't be upset. Now people are upset. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you can't move your user page, because that isn't your user name. If you want to change your user name, go to Changing username. Like it says in big red letters at the top of User:UN$¢ Łuke 1Ø21. Although changing your user name to a harder-to-type name just for lulz would be yet another example of you just thinking this site is for screwing around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest: the only time I've intentionally screwed around on Wikipedia was the prank RfA that doesn't count. Everything else I do is in good faith. I don't intend on messing with anyone or anything. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that RFA prank doesn't count, as the only possible area more serious than RFA is ARBCOM, or maybe the beuracrat notice board. Due to the nature of RFA handing over powerful tools it is considered a very serious area, and not meant for juvenile pranks. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lone tank rampage - 140 hits from German tanks have no effect (Char B1 bis)
Hello Luke. I saw previously that you were interested in a Russian heavy tank that had an outstanding record fighting alone against German Panzers on the Eastern Front of World War II. Yesterday I read about a fellow who commanded a French heavy tank that had nearly equal success against German Panzers in the Battle of France in the west. So I thought you might find him interesting too. His name was Pierre Billotte. The article about him seems in serious need of more references.

By the way, I do think you should stop doing things that make people feel irritated or uncomfortable, because otherwise you will very likely end up blocked forever, which would be sad. MPS1992 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll stop doing bad things for the sake of all of my friends in WP:MILHIST and WP:Tanks.


 * As for the tank guy, I'll read about him later. He sounds very interesting and I know some stuff about the Char B1 but have other things to do right now. Thanks! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 00:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for ITN comment
Thanks for this. It was blindingly obvious to me also that there's something weird going on at ITN, and I started a conversation on the Recurring Items talkpage that ended up being very frustrating. - Brianhe (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:The Rambling Man. Enough is enough. –Grondemar 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will not 'harass' another editor. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)
 * Could you provide a diff of where Luke "harassed" someone on User:The Rambling Man/User talk:The Rambling Man? Were you referring to this thread? -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that harassment, but for future reference Luke, editors are under no obligation to let you know that they are talking about you. I do appreciate your kindness towards me (especially your civility with me when I accused you of sockpuppetry, and I still appreciate your efforts to nominate me at ORCP, even if it wasn't exactly orthodox) - but the messing around with symbols on your user page was a bit silly and inappropriate. A lot of your behaviour does amount to trolling, and whilst I opposed any restrictions on you at RFA, it was only because I had it in my head that you didn't understand what you were doing. Looking back, I can see you were fully aware of what was going on. I'd hate to see you indeffed, so I'll give you a suggestion: why not get into a bit of counter-vandalism work? You could install Twinkle, and patrol recent changes - doing something productive with your time here. Patient Zerotalk 13:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll look into countervandalism and I'll try to stop bothering people. Thanks for the suggestions. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Starting here, it stretches well beyond the bounds of WP:AGF to assume that Luke doesn't understand that every user is automatically informed whenever their own talk page is edited. TRM nevertheless makes that fact abundantly clear.  Continuing the conversation from there is just needless provocation. –Grondemar 13:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Entirely agreed it was needless and could well be seen as provocation. A final warning for harassment is, in my opinion, over the top for this - that being said thank you for clarifying.
 * Luke, it's a shame you don't have email enabled on your account as I'd be happy to try to work with you to prevent things like this happening again - I agree with Patient Zero's message above, you need to divert yourself off of this "path" before it ends with an indefinite block -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea Luke. Have a read of WP:TW - if I were you I'd manually warn vandals first; here's a good page to start off with. When you're a bit more comfortable with that, then feel free to install the Twinkle script. Typically, you should start at lv. 1 and finish at lv. 4; after 4, if they're still causing trouble, report them at WP:AIV. I think the warning was too harsh, personally, but I hope that at the same time you'll take notice of the fact that certain editors aren't happy about what you've said. As Samtar said, it's a shame you don't have email enabled - I'd make a Wikipedia only email if I were you (no personal details, just in case you wish to contact other users, who may give out your information without your permission) and then he could give you some advice over there, if all is OK with you. One more thing: please read WP:YOUNG - not patronising you at all, just some advice for younger Wikipedia editors there. All the best should you wish to go down the AV path! Patient Zerotalk 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've linked my email; I can be found at my first userbox. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Patient Zerotalk 13:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't check my email because I'm in school. I can look later though. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, don't worry - it was just a test to see if you got it :-) Patient Zerotalk 13:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of I Am The Sea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I Am The Sea 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 Articles for deletion/I Am The Sea 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your message w.r.t. Die Feuerzangenbowle
If I hear "authoritarian", I immediately imagine "bellowing voice, unfriendly", things like that. The character Dr Brett from Die Feuerzangenbowle patently is no such thing (he can be described as authoritarian, but even that requires explanation and is an "at second glance" thing). So I cannot see how adding this information would be "unconstructive".--2001:A61:20C1:8901:509D:AB14:BE55:74A9 (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The term 'authoritarian' is considered a nonopinionated word as far as I know, and Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view. An explanation somehwhat dilutes the neutrality of the situation. I probably should have used a different warning, but it still stands. I'm sorry, I don't make the rules. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, my new edit on the page concerns a different matter.
 * Well, you can overrule me, but you will not bring me to agree with that. That Dr Brett is not unfriendly is patent to everyone who sees the film, and that "authoritarian", while not necessarily "opinionated" (what does that even mean?), carries, well, authoritarian overtones should be clear as well. And even if to some people it didn't, all I added was adding a piece of additional information which noone supposes is wrong.--2001:A61:20C1:8901:509D:AB14:BE55:74A9 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Stop fucking around Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Can you refresh my memory? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't recall pasting the entire script to the Bee movie on your userpage just 10 minutes ago? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, shit. I'm sorry. I wasn't thinking and in the moment didn't realize that it was copyrighted. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you not realize that the entire script of a movie isn't copyrighted? This again stretches AGF, had it been a few lines it would be understandable, but the entire script? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Entirely legitimate question: were you at the time/still are under the influence of any kind of drug or mind altering substance? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, with all proper respect, how could you possibly "not think" about posting in the entire script of a movie. I'll be perfectly honest, it has rapidly become very hard to AGF. Whether you are a long term troll, or merely incompetent, I cannot speak for; However, if you are unable to understand one of the pillars of Wikipedia (number 3), then you clearly have no business on Wikipedia. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
 * I don't feel the need to post it at ANI, but edit summaries like this and this really aren't appropriate. a) If you're adding material to a mainspace Wikipedia article, it needs a citation when you add it. b) No one owns any article; you can't just tell people not to edit the article because you don't want them to. Sam Walton (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A generous view might be to regard those edit summaries as merely a rather over-excited and more specific version of the template, rather than a claim of ownership and demand that others not edit the article at all. Much like the bathroom sinks in my university department have huge yellow fluorescant signs above them saying "CAUTION! HOT WATER!", which in a less over-excited world would be phrased and coloured more calmly.


 * I do quite often add material to mainspace with the intention -- signalled by edit summary -- of adding the source shortly afterwards, but it tends to be some minutes afterwards, rather than however long was involved in this case. Luke, if you have text that you absolutely must put somewhere, one suggestion would be to put it on the article's talk page with a sensible section heading like "Material to add and cite later, 19 Jan". Of course, that still wouldn't be appropriate if the material was a copyright violation or a WP:BLP violation. MPS1992 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Email
Please check your email at your earliest convenience - I offered you advice further up the page and have now provided it. Please read the email carefully -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 16:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm at school so I cannot currently read, but I will have read it before the day is over. Thank you. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Some advice
If you do not want to get a permanent block I would advise you do not say you will evade any block imposed with sock (or meat) puppetry. I strongly suggest you strike that threat and apologize pretty damn sharpish.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for how that came off. I was not trying to use that as a threat nor as leverage so I can get what I want. I am truly apologetic and will stop. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest you ask for a ban of a few weeks, in order to show that you gt it. This may also give you a cooling of period in which to evaluate your actions.Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll accpet this offer and take a ban of two or three months. If that is too generous please give me a more reasonable suggestion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me, make this offer at the ANI, say you will accept a temporary block.Slatersteven (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember taking you to SPI during your first few days here. Your threat makes me rather suspicious. Anything to declare? Patient Zerotalk 09:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not attempting to make a threat or use it as leverage, and I will not sockpuppet. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just seemed a little odd that you were stating that you would go down the "sockpuppet route", after everything that happened when you first started. Patient Zerotalk 12:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The users behavior tells me that what they wrote and what they wanted to write may not have been analogous. Also they seem to have (even by my standards) an odd grasp of English. I think what they meant to say (not that it is much better) is that if banned they would still try and edit (not that they would use sock puppetry to be disruptive), thus it was not really meant as a threat.

Do correct me if I am wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You are completely out of chances. Most people want you permanently blocked or banned. Playtime is over. The only reason you get an expiry time on this block, is because Floquenbeam made a strong case for one last final chance. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia you can spend the next two weeks talking on this page with people who will try to coach you, and if you screw up again I think you're history. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A few people have expressed interest in helping you out. has offered to mentor you,  who supported an indef has also expressed an interest in helping you out, and I myself am happy to give guidance where I can. Floquenbeam's proposal has not been enacted as "law", or does not appear to have been according to 's close, but, I would very highly recommend you follow it to the letter. This means that you should only edit articles, article talk pages, Wikiproject talk page discussions for articles, and your own user talk page (but not your user page). As far as Wikiproject discussions go I would suggest a tighter leash of; only edit Wikiproject talk pages to request assistance or article reviews. You appear to have an interest in modern military history (notably WWII) and armoured vehicles, that may be a reasonable place to work in as MILHIST is a quite active Wikiproject. I think it would be reasonable to expect that by the end of three months (per Floq's "reputation" comment) that you'll have at least nominated one or two articles to GA. That may be a goal to look towards if you want to demonstrate to others that you are in fact here to build an encyclopaedia. Other than that, like JzG has said, you can use your talk page for the next two weeks to get some advice and coaching. I recommend you take some time to work out what article(s) you may be interested in improving and get a head start on researching them so that when you come back you already have something to contribute, or if need be, take a two week break and then come back to Wikipedia fresher. That might be better for you then jumping straight into research right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I'm not really active on weekends, I just came here to check in. I can communicate tomorrow however, because really any weekday is ok. I will try to get advice and mentoring and continue to improve. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @UNSC Luke. I would certainly strongly suggest that you follow 's proposal strictly. I would also add that you should consider staying away from vandal fighting and concentrate on writing content and adding references for that time. I would also suggest that you spend a week or so reading the policies and guidelines and then start to regularly read the noticeboards (WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:FTN, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:COIN) to get an idea how those policies are interpreted and applied by the community. Do not comment on those boards until your probation expires. Just read them. I think you have the potential to be a good Wikipedia editor but you need to get your act together. went out on a limb for you. There was a strong consensus at ANI to site ban you and should a less well respected administrator have closed it like this they would likely have had their close challenged, successfully, and you would be banned now. As it is there will be no more ANI discussions. If you do something that someone takes you to ANI over someone will just cite this close and you will be indefinitely blocked with your only chance of ever coming back being the community accepting a WP:SO from you. I genuinely hope you are able to get through this tough period. My best advice to you is to think twice before hitting the "Save" button for any edit. Think about what you are saying and ask yourself not only what policies and guidelines are related  to the edit but how other people, particularly adults, are likely to perceive it. If you think an edit would be "funny", or that, if someone complains, you would say "just kidding" or "I just wanted to see how people would respond" then do not make the edit because that will likely be an edit that will get you banned from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or need some help now or later please feel free to  me or ask me a question on my talk page. If you are unsure of something ask. Cheers.   J bh  Talk  15:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
I'm banned, but I would like to open a sockpuppet case that I noticed. I would like this open before it goes stale.

The two users in question are User:BadgerOfObsolete and User:SuperBadger. Both users made identical vandalizing edits to Quebec City mosque shooting and they have extremely similar usernames. Can someone please open this for me, if possible? I don't want this to go stale and let a sockpuppet go.

UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Both editors have already been indefinitely blocked. They are likely socks, but, it would be moot to do an investigation given the circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. The second user was not blocked at the time of my writing. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, good point. Well in that case I amend my comment above to both users are now indefinitely blocked. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi UNSC Luke 1021! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:55, Monday, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

US Navy A class review
Hi Luke, I've removed the nomination as out of process. You're not a major contributor to the article, your nomination statement appears more concerned with your opinion of the subject than the quality of the article, and the article has obvious issues that wouldn't be acceptable for GA or even B class, much less A class. I'm sure you mean well, but A-class is serious business—just a step shy of featured article. It would take an awful lot of work to bring the article up to that standard, more than can reasonably be done during a review, and you would need to be familiar with the source material. When I do serious article work, I end up with a pile of books on my coffee table. You would certainly need to have read and have access to the many books published about the US Navy. There are many people at Milhist who would be willing to help if you wanted to work on the article, but you should be aware that it's not a small undertaking. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing this. I was unsure about what the qualifications were to nominate an article, so I was unsure about even nominating it. I'll definitely work on the article over the weekend at the library and I'll nominate it again. Thank you again for the advice! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things. 1. detailed criteria for each article class can be found on this page. 2. Before you nominate US Navy for A-class review, I think you should take the article via B-class review (again), then GA-class review, then perhaps A-class. GA takes a while (a few months at least) so if you're not very keen on waiting try going via WP:Peer review and then A-class. A short skim tells me it's not at the B-class standard so I've downgraded it to C-class for the time being. MILHIST B-class requires a minimum of 1 citation per paragraph to cover all the material in that paragraph. If you like I can go through and add citation needed templates to help direct you to the portions that don't meet the B1 criterion; this is why I'm downgrading it to C-class and recommending a B-class reassessment. MILHIST is quite active so B-class shouldn't take more than a few days to a week. Some sections could use a clean up to make it look neater (specifically the section entitled "mission"). On the bright side it's a fairly expansive and detailed looking article. It also looks mostly well written. I'd say it's doing well in terms of B3 and B5 at the very least. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you go through and add ? It would be great. I'll fill them in as much as I can and I'll go to the library over the weekend. Cleanup and anything else is fairly easy and I can figure it out myself, but I'll ask you if I need any help. Thank you! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done for the time being, I'll take a closer look at the article tomorrow. It's not uncommon that material has been cited in the article but the citation has been put improperly or is meant to cover two paragraphs instead of one. I've added quite a number of citation needed templates. I think I've added all the ones you'll need to address. I skipped the section titled uniforms because I am not sure what will need citations and what won't, but, that might be easily addressed at B-class later on. On the off-chance that my tagging is reverted, it's going to have a fair amount of traffic and all the citation templates are going to look unsightly, here's a diff to help you identify the problems paragraphs. If you need help, leave me a message here or on the article talk page as I've watchlisted the article. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just a case of a bit of tidying and addressing a few fact tags. That will deal with the decay the article has suffered over the years and the article owuld certainly be better for it, but the sourcing itself needs improving and there will be things that need to be added and removed to make it comprehensive and keep it on-topic. To get it beyond B class, you'll have to do a lot of research; you'll need to read every book on the navy's history (and some of those will be big heavy doorstops), then a lot of books and journal articles on more specific elements. It might be a good idea to find a featured article on a similar subject and use that as a model. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I never got around to thanking you for your perseverance with the bastion fort renaming saga; I must admit that I had given up hope! Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I kept going because the name seemed appropriate. This is what the wiki is about; spreading information in an easy to read yet descriptive manner. Anyway, I appreciate the recognition. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Alansplodge (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You said that I have been treated respectfully, including by the IP user.
"Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page". Is this what you deem to be respectful? Have you looked at the sequence of events with rnddude, including his statement that these events are fabrications, despite the previous discussion and sourcing?--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not necessarily by the IP user, but the administrators were definitely treating you with respect and leniency until you pushed them over the edge. I found to be the most impressively respectful with the way you acted towards him. He presented you with facts and evidence and you continued to argue that IP was editing 'in bad faith', which he most certainly was not. Let's wait until an ANI discussion is opened and then we can argue all we need to. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Senor Freebie
I suggest you do not reply to Senor Freebie's latest post on his talk page. We have reached the point where it is clear he is simply in denial and or he craves the attention he has been getting from all of this drama. As long as he confines the drama to his talk page I am content to just ignore him. But if he takes it anywhere else he will get another block, almost certainly a long term one. File this under the heading of WP:DENY. CC:. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - I will not reply to his most recent entry on his talk page, and I agree this is getting out of hand. I'm going out on a limb and risking punishment getting involved and try and help him out, and he simply continues to resist assistance making inflammatory comments about how I am 'contradicting myself'. At this point, he seems to not be here to build an encyclopedia, and I won't oppose any requested punishments on WP:ANI. He's had his chance many times and he blew it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left a talk page comment to try and lightly address all aspects of the issue in a shorter post from my own (and my own alone) perspective. There is more happening here, in my opinion, than just SF launching accusations at people. I think part of the burden here has been the way it was handled as well as the the actions that precipitated it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for your well intentioned comment on Senor Freebie's talk page. However at this point I think the best course is to just ignore him and hope he confines his drama to his own talk page. See the above discussion. Thanks again... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Commentary on CSD
"This is the worst argument to keep an article I've ever heard. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)"[1 ]

Luke, while I do agree with you, this seems a small bit bite-y. I know that might not have been your intention, but just be careful about your phrasing. Thanks! MereTechnicality  ⚙  20:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reporting username violations
Hi there, many thanks for your efforts in enforcing the username policy. I've noticed that several of your recent WP:UAA reports have been WP:ORGNAME violations with no edits; in general, it's not necessary to report or block inactive accounts, as outlined in the UAA instructions. Many problematic usernames are created each day, and the vast majority are seen by no-one except for a handful of Special:Log/newusers patrollers. It's simply not practical to try blocking them all until they edit or attempt to do so. Thanks for understanding, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:56, 17 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:
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Mifter (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read my note at WP:PERM under your request. I vacillated for quite a while if I should grant your request so here is a bit of friendly advice.  Go slow.  There is no deadline and all our other policies apply to reviewing pending changes.  Be mindful of assuming the best of intentions, not biting the newcomers, don't game the system, and you will be likely be fine.  It is better to err on the side of caution than not.  Mifter (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi UNSC Luke 1021. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AUNSC_Luke_1021 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

NPP....
While a page is under a speedy deletion, please avoid re-nominating it at WP:AFD which some-what derails the appropriate deletion procedure for pure-vandalisms like Australia at the 2018 Winter Olympics.If you ever doubt the validity of CSD, please remove the tag and then nominate it at WP:AFD.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 13:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - Thank you! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning messages
I've removed the warning notices you posted to User:Celestina007. She has exposed a blatant hoax and removed unreferenced, spurious rubbish. You cannot accuse her of vandalising something like that which should be CSD, as you have subsequently requested. I suggest you apologise to Celestina, who is still a WP:NEWBIE and tell her it was a misunderstanding. Thanks. Jack | talk page 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I went to her talk page and was leaving a message to say that I reopened the CSD and that she was not incorrect, but I just rolled back entirely because it would be easier in the end. I wasn't trying to undo the CSD, which is why I reopened it. I was going to leave a message but I edit conflicted with you. I'll clear up the misunderstanding. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, Luke. The main thing is to get that page CSD and its "author" off the site. All the best. Jack | talk page 18:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Hello again, Luke. Please see Articles for deletion/Bijay Ketan Swain. Thanks. Jack | talk page 18:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Help on Wikimedia Commons
I need help on Wikimedia Commons with adding a source on an image. It's difficult for me to do things other than upload because my school has put a restriction on the desktop site but not the mobile (don't ask me why). The image is. If somebody could do it for me or help it would be great. Thank you! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the source? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 15:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - I got it from the US Department of Defense website. The link is here. I don't know why this image in particular doesn't work when the others do. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Why do the other files not do this? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that image, but don't know what other files you are talking about. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Like this one that I also uploaded yesterday. No link was included in either, but only one had a problem. Why? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because no human reviewer had looked at that one yet. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)