User talk:Sa57arc

Please help
Hello S. Editors are trying to understand the links that you are adding to various articles. If you could provide any information that you have at this thread Help desk it would be appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded there and provided a link to that thread at Template talk:Wikimapia cat .--Sa57arc (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikimapia cat
Template:Wikimapia cat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Moxy (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2020
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Sam Sloan. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Sam Sloan. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please respond to the repeated requests for you to disclose whether or not you have a COI regarding Sam Sloan, such as a personal or professional relationship with him off of Wikipedia? You have mentioned that you may email him, and you have been asked at least half a dozen times about an apparent COI, and yet you have provided no answer other than to say you are not Sam Sloan himself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have continued to add inappropriate puffery and unsourced content to the Sam Sloan article, and yet you have still not responded to this request regarding an apparent COI. Could you please provide a response here or at the COI noticeboard? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 365Chess.com


A tag has been placed on 365Chess.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 365Chess.com


The page 365Chess.com has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Red Phoenix talk  12:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Your recent editing history at Gypsy Taub shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Gothamist shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have created a new essay at WP:STP in response to our recent teamwork issues.--Sa57arc (talk)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please contribute to WP:STP. I am having trouble with getting a senior editor to work it out on the talk page.--Sa57arc (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Gypsy Taub
What's with the contempt towards this person? Your comments on her article talk page are BLP violations, and you should remove them or an administrator will. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I responded there. Thanks for the heads up

--Sa57arc (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

your WP:R shortcut
You've been leaving WP:R all over the place but apparently have never clicked on it. That shortcut goes to WP:Redirect. I believe you mean WP:Reliable sources (shortcut WP:RS). Schazjmd  (talk)  00:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. You are correct. Thanks.--Sa57arc (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020


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

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Sjö (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not editors
Some of your comments, such as this one, could be considered to be casting aspersions. Please stop referring to another editor as "contentious editor" and speculating about their motivations. Comment on content. Schazjmd  (talk)  01:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"World traveler" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect World traveler. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)