https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meher_Babas_Animal_Tombs.jpg

PTP? Care to elaborate what that stands for?Viriditas (talk)00:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, its pretty well used where I go, 'The Powers That Be'. Its used to label 'Those in power' in a broad definition.SaintAviatorlets talk00:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol typo PTB, doing ten things at once sorry ;)SaintAviatorlets talk00:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toAvatar's Abode may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to deal with Avatars Abode which could conflict with Babas wish. <ref> "Avatars Abode Pty. Ltd"[http:http://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=83ED132C-78D1-480F-BE7F-6B2CA6353CE4&noleft=1 </ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)06:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss here.SaintAviatorlets talk23:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,RGloucester —☎06:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

SaintAviator,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyableNew Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.Iryna Harpy (talk)00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Lovely, thank you so much. I will keep it here.SaintAviatorlets talk07:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has beendeclined to be heard by the Committee. The arbitrators felt that they would rather see this issue brought toWP:AE for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions which arealready authorised for the topic area. Please see thethe Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you.SaintAviatorlets talk07:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition toLockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has been removed, as it appears to have addedcopyrighted material to Wikipedia withoutpermission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please readWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source ofinformation, but not as a source ofcontent, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violatorswill beblocked from editing. The specific edit wasthis one that was copied word for word fromthis source. -Ahunt (talk)15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ease up with the heavy. Its fixed, I was getting round to it.SaintAviatorlets talk02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man,

Got anymore rap songs?Étienne Dolet (talk)18:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I write them on the fly, while watching life roll by. This is a 'world war', some cant see it, others do 'for sure'. One thing I know, it will never be the same, now Russia moved to change the game. The West has been subverted by the elitist perverted, they want all the money, this shit aint so funny. Im sensing coming trouble, like a ponzi bubble, when it blows we all gunna know, bro.SaintAviatorlets talk23:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was awesome man. Are you going to come out with a CD soon?Étienne Dolet (talk)23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol ;)SaintAviatorlets talk23:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page containsmaterial that is kept because it is consideredhumorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

[1]

[syncopathic Drum beat] Write your Hate right Here, Stick it to the Russian Bear. Keep if off the talk page, let out all your pent up rage. Let the POV flow, write it like you 'know', noWP:Fringe warning here, you aint gotta fear, noWP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT tag, theres no admin hassle drag. Let the Putin pain come out with that POV shout. Why dont they understan, he has an evil plan. You know that you're right, Putin is 'The' badass, thats coming in the night. Hes gunna shaft the Ukies, put em all in camps, hes gunna kill the EU and all their banks. Next he will nuke Merica, just cause he can. You gotta tell the world of this monstrous plan.SaintAviatorlets talk05:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a joke out about a confirmed murderer is strange, indeed. If you were under his direct attention, you'd be terrified. It is not anti-Russian (a great nation/people!) to condemn a near-Stalinist tyrant. Your values are skewed - I hope you'll do some serious thinking about your stance on this man. I have good friends in St. Petersburg and Samara who live in constant fear under his & his cronies' regime.— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.67.15.53 (talk)03:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea whats at stakeSaintAviatorlets talk23:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But surely you do.217.91.160.45 (talk)08:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can he, when Russia's economy is smaller than Spain's? (79.67.117.59 (talk)10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep watching MSM and you will never knowSaintAviatorlets talk00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tell you to keep watching OPT, PTP and Russia Today but we both know you don't watch that shit. You know what you're doing here, and the only reason for the decline of your activity here is that Kremlin ceased payment to many Olgino and other Kremlin trolls. It's pretty funny when a self-proclaimed "superpower" has to resort to random internet trolls to spread its propaganda... and then doesn't even pay them what it promised.217.91.160.45 (talk)08:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/NoticeboardSaintAviatorlets talk10:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that this page is somehow under the control of pro-Putin POV-pushers is becoming increasinly untenable; if anything, the problem is the other way round, on the talk page at least.N-HHtalk/edits You are correct Sir.SaintAviatorlets talk00:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted three more of the "election" sections on the talk page. I hope I can count on your support for this. And if there are more going to appear, perhaps take your turn in removing them.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)02:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started a 3RR, I think thats better than deleting. You should revert as they are evidence now herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warringSaintAviatorlets talk04:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted twice, if theres a third please revert. Case being looked at any time. Easier for admin if things are in placeSaintAviatorlets talk04:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting is only possible in some situations afaik, not this spamming one, you may want to check. IMHO its best to try talk, (we did) but if not working (edit war -3RR) go to noticeboardSaintAviatorlets talk04:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting material that is not intended to provide constructive talk towards content issues is acceptable. Repeatedly posting the same thing fringe opinion again and again in multiple new sections is not constructive. The deleted content still exists as diffs if needed to be cited. However if I am not supported I am not going to waste more of my time deleting or collapsing spam content. Just don't complain if it goes on and on (which it will).Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)21:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And see where the raising of it on the admin noticeboard got you. Talk page abuse is not a 3rr issue, and taking it there just provided an excuse for those with friends in high places to act.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)21:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheMediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation.Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing therequest page, theformal mediation policy, and theguide to formal mediation,please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016.

Therequest for formal mediation concerning Vladimir Putin, to which you were listed as a party, has beendeclined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see themediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to theChairman of the Committee, or to themailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, seeWikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Making "arguments" likethis is unacceptable. I noticed that you did the same on a number of occasions. Please argue on the essence of the issue. Otherwise, one might think that you do not discuss in a good faith. Thanks,My very best wishes (talk)05:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreeSaintAviatorlets talk06:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a lot of similar comments, for examplehere (collapsed text). Since you disagree, then perhaps one would need an advice from an uninvolved admin.My very best wishes (talk)13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Say what? Uninvolved admin !! What do you have againstDrmies? Without him we would be at 230K sizeSaintAviatorlets talk22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit copies directly from the source -- in other words, plagiarism and copyright violation. Don't do it again; we'll take a quick trip to ANI if you do.Nomoskedasticity (talk)05:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No its altered enough. But to be sure I rewrote it, Thanks for the heads up, though your tones a bit harsh. Something to work on perhaps. Anyway good pick up.SaintAviatorlets talk06:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I have noticed that you cleanse the articleVladimir Putin from stuff you don't like. Please stop that. --Mathmensch (talk)18:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathmensch, Hello there, please read previous threads on TP on reducing size of article suggested by admin Drmies. Also dont add new threads at top of Talk pagesSaintAviatorlets talk23:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be editing this article with a bias approach and it is becoming disruptive. I would advise you to refrain from editing the article and keep to the talk page. Any further disruptive edits and I will seek an administrator's advice, which could lead to blocks.JollyΩJanner04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I think your view is incorrect. On the Craig thread you were reverting without BRD discuss, so NoSaintAviatorlets talk04:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk)04:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YouSaintAviatorlets talk04:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like youdid here. I'm assuming it was an accident. Please correct it.Volunteer Marek (talk)05:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict. It didnt show up.SaintAviatorlets talk05:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you correct it?Volunteer Marek (talk)05:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already doneSaintAviatorlets talk05:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a new editor and I have come under attack for using sources which are allegedly not reliable (I usedInvestopedia for Soros' 1992 speculation against the pound andAccuracy in Media for his political agenda). I like your edits and this is why I am asking you for help. Could you be so kind as to suggest an impartial administrator with whom I coud discuss the subject of reliable sources? Thank you.Ardhanarishvara (talk)23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delayArdhanarishvara I have not logged in for awhile.Drmies is a good Admin. Best of luckSaintAviatorlets talk23:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for hour help. Cheeers!— Precedingunsigned comment added byArdhanarishvara (talk •contribs)23:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It doesnot imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

TheArbitration Committee has authoriseddiscretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision ishere.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This meansuninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behavior, or relevantpolicies. Administrators may impose sanctions such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN^{talk to me}08:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. 1RR needs to be respected if its in place.SaintAviatorlets talk22:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN^{talk to me}. Im newish to The Committee's decisionhere. Is this a 3RR breach?[2].SaintAviatorlets talk23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Consecutive edits count as one revert only. BTW, typing {{u|NeilN}} is probably an easier way of mentioning me. --NeilN^{talk to me}23:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yes re yr name :)SaintAviatorlets talk23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[3]SaintAviatorlets talk08:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages forinappropriate discussions, as you did atTalk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.Please stop using Wikipedia pages disruptively:[4][5][6] -MrX21:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on, but there is, at some point, a line between championing an unpopular opinion (I do that all the time), and making comments that are in no way connected to building an encyclopedia. Some of your recent comments have fairly obviously crossed that line.TimothyJosephWood22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andthis is not a suitable comment for an AfD, which is about the notability of an article, not your petty political viewpoints. That's a couple of inappropriate edits you've made recently - I would strongly suggest you stop doing it.Black Kite (talk)23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to the above. The influx of new editors on that article created a frenzy of activity, so sure were they of a win. While not justifying my comments I can in hindsight identify high levels of Schadenfreude[7] at the time of writing. Even now in fact. However you are all quite right.SaintAviatorlets talk01:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SaintAviator. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Volunteer Marek is a reasonable person, I have worked with him on quite a few articles. It is not constructive to taunt people and it doesn't add any value to the discussion, it actually hurts. Assume good faith and people will assume good faith from you, well at least usually that is how it works. Best Wishes!Lipsquid (talk)06:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to suspect that you are, in fact,not here to build an encyclopedia. Take that in consideration, and fix yourself.TimothyJosephWood16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we are going to lay it all outUser:Timothyjosephwood. I don't think you are here to create a good encyclopedia here either. You seem to be a biased cheerleader for McCain who you feel is a war hero. Stick to the facts and I will give you the same advice, assume good faith from others as you are about the last person who should be trolling other people's user pages about bias. Your intention is not good faith, your intention is to incite a response. Move along and try to be a nicer person.Lipsquid (talk)19:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lipsquid To be clear, I was referring to SaintAviator, which I assumed they would understand because we've had this discussion before, and I just removed their comment as an off-topic BLP violation. I should have been clearer for your sake, Lipsquid. I really have no idea who you are, and have no opinion one way or the other on what you're here for.TimothyJosephWood19:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to a past BLP Marek set up a back channel email cabal to influence WP editing. It was leaked and he was outed. Did you know that?SaintAviatorlets talk21:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what that means. Looks to me that I followed your talk page when I left you a similar comment on 14 November 2016, and haven't removed it.TimothyJosephWood21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means VM had a group who discussed tactics by email to push thru POV edits by weight of numbers. One of the group turned whistle blower on him, thats how it was outed.SaintAviatorlets talk21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did noy know that about VM. Thank you for letting me know, though it makes me sad. Wikipedia has a kot of issues like that. it is why people need to go out of their way to be nice and assume good will.Lipsquid (talk)00:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should probably take the evidence you have for that toWP:ANI. Unfortunately, it's not precisely relevant to whether you continue to make off color, off topic remarks on talk pages, which I would very much appreciate if you refrained from. Do try to exercise some self control.TimothyJosephWood21:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear youSaintAviatorlets talk21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[8]

This sort of notice is not how its done VM.SaintAviatorlets talk06:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re tothis. I simply watch AE page.My very best wishes (talk)02:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint about your edits has beenclosed with no sanction. The closer said: "SaintAviator is reminded to be more careful with their comments referring to other editors, and particularly that they think twice about making inappropriate comments about living persons." Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)19:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. It was a fair process.SaintAviatorlets talk19:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you clarify what you were talking about with regards to Volunteer Marek and a "back channel email cabal to influence WP editing"? I don't see his username atWP:EEML. Thanks.Esn (talk)23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was extensive large scale manipulation of Wiki to subvert the editing process for their own ends. Marek then was this name. Radeksz.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Radeksz

As stated he got a 1 year ban. One of the group blew the whistle, this was how it was discovered. I hadnt appreciated fully how many were involved till this month. I dont know the motive, but its most likely it was a political slant.SaintAviatorlets talk20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change your username and then go back to causing chaos and battlegrounds on the same pages. It is ridiculous that this continues on pages like Putin and War in Syria.Lipsquid (talk)22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the "Improper coordination" section really reminds me of some things I've seen more recently from (I suspect) some of the same group... is there anyone else from that case who's still (known to be) around?Esn (talk)22:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ummm, maybe... My very best wishes? To say they coincidentally cross paths a lot is an understatement.Lipsquid (talk)23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of us care. Ive seen talk on this issue offline too.SaintAviatorlets talk22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several different and blatantly incorrect edits of yours atFukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Can I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page for this subject, or at least review what you are writing before adding to article space?VQuakr (talk)00:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Im up to speed on the terms now.SaintAviatorlets talk01:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not. Next step is ANI if you can't refrain from discussing edits first on topics you do not understand.VQuakr (talk)00:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes I am. Its not that complex. Theres no blanket rule about discussing edits. Be Bold. But go to ANI on this if you must. It would be interesting going there on such a matter. Whats your specific issue now. Not before but now. Is it the about 650 sieverts? Assuming it is because you just posted here again. Here is the key question: do you have an issue with the reference? No? Yes? BTW the 'five times' section not in ref was not me. Speak to this editor.[9].SaintAviatorlets talk02:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any source that compares the radiation levels between Chernobyl and Fukushima. They were very different reactor designs and failure modes, and comparing the radiation level above the open-air Chernobyl volcano and under the Fukushima RPV is not anoriginal synthesis that we should be doing as editors.VQuakr (talk)08:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see you have toned down your rhetoric and dropped the ridiculous ANI threats. Are you going to harass Ozmol for adding text without discussion also? OK. The 650 ref is here[10] the 300 ref is hereChernobyl Disaster. So thats obvious. So when you reverted and said 'Also, not in source provided' you were disingenuous. Now your stand is where the radiation was found which is silly and the sillier Volcano snipe. Level 7 status is based on in part the high rates of radiation detection. Now its you who are not up to speed. Then your other stand isoriginal synthesis which is a wrong analysis. Im saying A is bigger than B not A + B = C = . Inoriginal synthesis C is a conclusion from A + B that is not mentioned by either of the sources. A CONCLUSION. Not a comparision which is what I did. I know both are C words but You clearly dont understand whatoriginal synthesis is. My own conclusion is you are edit warring for some reason Im not interested in.SaintAviatorlets talk19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an argument to make on the article talk page if you think the content should be included. Accusations of harassment are serious, mebbe you could strike that part? The request for you totake your proposal to the talk page was addressed to you specifically, so I am not sure what Ozmol would have to do with it. Please re-read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Comparing the two radiation levels implies a conclusion.VQuakr (talk)01:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ETA - contemporary accounts refer to the open top of the Chernobyl reactor as "the volcano". That wasn't intended to be a snipe.VQuakr (talk)01:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sound like to you now? 'Next step is ANI if you can't refrain from discussing edits first on topics you do not understand'. Its not very civil. I mentioned Ozmol because he didnt discuss on the talk page either. You are not there either. You dont understand Synth still. Most people reading this article will want to know the max radiation detected and a comparison with the other level 7 event. Sure you could add a sciency bit to clarify it. Whatever. Id consider an Rfc on this.SaintAviatorlets talk06:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a compromise edit in another section of the lede. Feel free to add science data to it.SaintAviatorlets talk21:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing.Competence is required to edit here, and you've made half a dozen or so edits in this topic which all indicate that you are not competent enough to read and summarize sources in this specific topic area. Most recentlythis, in which you appear to be confused about the difference between contamination and radiation while simultaneously violatingWP:LEAD,WP:SYNTH, andWP:BURDEN. A reactor can't "vent" radiation, it can vent contamination (which would be measured in units of activity such as Bq or a mass paired with identification of the radioisotope). This isn't semantics, it's a fundamental lapse that someone with the most basic background in the subject would catch. The suggestion at the start of this thread was intended to fix these problems with the content before they hit mainspace, (and maybe help you learn in the process), but you don't seem to have much interest in that. Still not sure what other editors have to do with this; unless they have the same competence issues I do not see why they can't just followWP:BRD (though you seem to have issues with that as well). Feel free to chime in on the talk page; I'll start a section on comparison of radiation readings.VQuakr (talk)02:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vented[11]. Chernobyl certainly vented. Its a better use of what occurred than your Volcano. Where I live we have strong ties with the UK. Our language base is wider than the US for instance. You may not be used to this. Seriously you still dont know that a comparison is not a conclusion either. Mean time you claim incompetence, while you cant get your little edit notes to express what you want to say, they flip flop around. Im finding you quite funny. If you have a problem with the reference say so. Otherwise it appears you're trying to save face with these empty arguments. Vented, quite a well used word re Chernobyl.[12]SaintAviator Dont bother me here again, go to the talk page. Thank you.lets talk03:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New posts below thanks.

Please remember to focus oncontent, not editors, in article talk space. You are welcome at my user talk page if you wish to discuss something other than article content.VQuakr (talk)00:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time please try to see the bigger picture.SaintAviatorlets talk21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, they should make a film about this guy, I just read the entire article and now want to watch the youtube link. Thanks for putting my attention back on the Meher Baba stuff today, I've learned a lot about him and his posse. The guy even had hismother, father, and sister following him as a spiritual avatar [EDIT: Incorrect, for the parents, I just read their pages]. Closest I ever got to him was to sit in a small room and hear one of his main disciples speak, wish I could remember which one. And saw his jacket in a glass case. Apparently he was one of those people you just had to 'be there' with (literally) to feel his presence. I'd think it'd be pretty odd to have one'sparents sister follow you around like a teacher, but maybe that's just me.Randy Kryn03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hes the real thing ;)SaintAviatorlets talk06:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This andthis is a 1RR violation. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk)18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a 1RR isnt it. Theres so many these days, but I missed the banner. Well time has rolled on and my edits are too far back now as other editors have edited since then. Thanks for the heads up though.SaintAviatorlets talk21:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decided to go and do it again[13].Volunteer Marek (talk)05:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It doesnot imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Acommunity decision has authorised the use ofgeneral sanctions for pages related to theSyrian Civil War and theIslamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are describedhere. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to aonerevert per twenty-four hoursrestriction, as describedhere.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This meansuninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behaviour, or relevantpolicies. Administrators may impose sanctions such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is loggedhere. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~Rob₁₃^Talk16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see that now. I had some time off and didnt pick up the 1RR across such a wide topic

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of72 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayrequest an unblock by first reading theguide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.  ~Rob₁₃^Talk17:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wont request an unblock, I have been somewhat distracted with flu like illness, which made me a little disorientated. I can say now its best not to edit when like this. As I missed the 1RR and the ANI notice. I have some busy days ahead but yes I will come back and watch for the 1RR especially. I also rejectVolunteer Marek blackballing accusations in the noticeboard that I created some sock accounts to edit pages in the Syrian war grouping.

Question forRob₁₃ How can I reportVolunteer Marek for having violated 1RR himself just yesterday when Im blocked? There are 3 1RR violations on the first link alone.[14][15]SaintAviatorlets talk21:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't while blocked, but note this is already being discussed at ANI. Personally, I do not see that as a 1RR violation because I'm unable to identify any recent edit that the first edit of his reverted. ~Rob₁₃^Talk00:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Heres the thing though. As text it existed so someone put it in once,(it existed here[16]) so when VM deleted it thats a reversion. Now what if I took out some long existing text from the article, then within a short time in the same 24 hr period, did another reversion thats been reverted recently. Are you saying that behaviour is NOT a 1RR violation?Rob₁₃SaintAviatorlets talk03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Removing content is not automatically a revert. To be a "revert" the edit introducing the content must be at least somewhat recent. Otherwise, even altering existing text in an article would be a partial revert (which is viewed the same as a full revert in terms of 1RR/3RR). This is somewhat subjective, but at a minimum, one needs to be able to identify what is being reverted (e.g. what specific edit). ~Rob₁₃^Talk04:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The potential of Wikipedia is enormous. Its not there yet but its aSoftware evolution andBiological interaction in action process. It will get better. Currently Wikipedia is good enough in a high percentage of topics, but its often behind the wave or biased in controversial topics. You cant blame this situation on neutral editors who have to deal with the RS availiable and RS restrictions. However Wikipedias great current proplems continue: annonymous users, subjective RS criteria, leakage and disengagement of the best admins and disenchantment of potential good admins; a culture of inherent conservative Neo Con like bias; political interference; editors gaming the system; the inability to detect and deal with back channel groups coordinating editwars. The latter would be solved if there was no advantage in doing so. However in the current world situation Wikipedia is too valued a resource to be ignored by certain groups who target it. My experience in Wikipedia is of seeing fresh editors come and go in a harsh POV biased environment. Iguana Vs Snake / Raptor[17]SaintAviatorlets talk01:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

check.SaintAviatorlets talk02:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent comment on your page, this is so on point.--MyMoloboaccount (talk)10:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your're welcome. It is yes. I know of some fine editors who decided to not be admins due to the culture here. Us NPOV editors are fighting the good fight. We have to keep in mind two things. Deep state media control is fastidious in restricting 'facts' appearing in Western MSM that oppose their agenda. These are RS we could use to show reality. They know this. Two, there are editors here who are editing with a political agenda. They fall into two categories: a/ Most. Those who have drunk the Kool Aid, and dont understand that they dont know that they dont know. They resemble a lot of humanity in this respect. b/ Some. Agents. Both groups have no idea that the Deep State agenda is going to lead to a nightmare for humanity with a small group of Elites Lording it over the rest of us us 'if it gets up'. Ironically the once free West has become controlled by 'Elites' who pretend at democracy. I was born and have always lived in the West BTW. Even more ironically Russia is one of two major powers who are keeping their Global domination agenda in check. Trump has been turned or lied all the way. So conflict looks enivitable. However there is a very interesting twist. From being almost down and out in the early 90's Russia has developed incredible weapons sytems that outmatch the Wests in key fields. Meanwhile US shortcomings in systems like the new F35 are severe. Once again this has been censored, so the Kool Aiders will scoff. We will have to see how this all plays out. Then some editors who are entrenched may feel like this Iguana when reality hits hard.[18]SaintAviatorlets talk00:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoloboaccount Updated significantly.[19]

Hi Saint Aviator,Please email me atmy Wikipedia email account. Thanks,Scott P. (talk)06:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the email discussion initiation.

Hello, SaintAviator. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

OK ThanksSaintAviatorlets talk01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviator,Someone has reverted our edit to the Putin lead. If you don't mind, could you please revert it? I will approach the individual who did the revert. Your doing this would help clarify to the reverter that this is already an agreed upon edit. Thanks,Scott P. (talk)05:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator, I must apologize as I have made you a sort of an unknowing guinea-pig for my little "diabolical social experiment." If it might be of any consolation value to you, I am certainly one of the guinea-pigs in my own social experiment too. I have certainly learned a great deal from you thus far, and I sincerely thank you for that. I didn't mention your exact name over at the Jimbo-talk page, because I didn't really have your permission to do so. If I discuss you again over there, I promise you two things, 1. I will let you know. 2. I will use your name (unless you might prefer I don't.) Here are a few of the things I feel you have been kind enough to teach me:

1. That all Putin supporters are not evil. (Specifically, at least one that I happen to know now.)  :-)
2. That Putin is not "evil." Hey, from at least one valid perspective, Russia has been one of the most stratified societies in Europe for millenea. The last time they attempted an anti-stratification model (communism) millions of people were killed in the process. Under Putin's new anti-stratificaiton model (relative to Czarist Russia) only a few dozen folks seem to have been assassinated. Everything is relative, and by that evaluation, Putin aint so bad.
3. That there is hope for more serious dialogue around here than usually merely passes for serious. (I believe that any dialogues based on a fundamental understanding of mutual respect, are always far more productive than other dialogues which sadly are all too often including subtle but deep elements of mutual disrespect and distrust.)
4. That there is hope for humanity after all.

Thanks again Aviator,Scott P. (talk)23:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putin's a war criminal and murderer. Get it right.— Precedingunsigned comment added by50.111.62.5 (talk)05:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this little experiment has not yet reached its conclusion, simply due to the failure of the Putin page lead. The experiment now continues, at least somewhat more overtly, at:Simulated email conversation. If you might be interested in further participation in this little "diabolical social experiment," please let me know.

As I noted above, thank you so much for your patience with the experiment thus far.

Scott P. (talk)00:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bystander's comment since I was not involved in the discussion. The matter under discussion was materials about political assassinations of Nemtsov, Politkovskaya and Litvinenko[20]. You tell: Yes Russians have no doubt killed some people for sure, agents of the Western Elites, personally I think that's fine.[21]. This is an extremesoapboxing on article talk page if not an outright propaganda of political violence in WP space. Not mentioning that your comment was offensive for "Russians" who do not support these political assassinations.My very best wishes (talk)12:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying MVBW's. People become unknowing puppets and get caught up tragically in events way beyound their comprehension. Like the ISIS fighters who dont know their leaders have western handlers who are ideologically opposed to the beliefs of the foot soldiers. It will all make sense down the track when people see the manifestation of current events as conflict and the Elites and their manipulations become exposed or the world is devastated. As I have said before there is a war on, but most people are not aware of it.SaintAviator21:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No--you said that killing people is fine.Drmies (talk)01:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get it rightDrmies. 'Yes Russians have no doubt killed some people for sure, agents of the Western Elites, personally I think thats fine. Do you think its not two way? It certainly is.' You dont understand Drmies because your refernence points are Main Stream Western Media and you probably have not been to war. Im right arn't I. Wikipedians are by and large well informed about what they are given, mistaking that for facts or the truth is an error. There is a war on. People are dying all over the place. If you think the West is run by people who live their Christian values and strive for democracy you will never 'Get it' that the Elites in the West are the force pushing for conflict with Russia / China because the Elites want global domination. They dont care about humanity at all. Think Star Wars The Empire. You may think that will be ok. You are wrong. You dont know that you dont know. Therefore for many of us in the West who can see the real picture, (think the Alliance in Star Wars) the elimination of agents of the Elites is a good thing. Because Russia and its military might is the main block to what will be a two class system. The elites and the masses. And a lot less masses than now. Think hunger games. Far fetched? No. Toned down for you? Yes. You are living in a bubble, a fiction. But you're not alone. No amount of Gatekeeping will keep out reality from bursting that bubble. One day, in fact at anytime, a large conflagration could start.SaintAviator03:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what is wrong with you? Killing is OK because you're not brainwashed by the Western media? This has nothing to do with ways or sides or whatever (or Star Wars?), and the more you rant and rave the more I think you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Go out and join some army so you can do some real killing; what you're doing here right now is nothing but advocacy, propaganda--besides patronizing.Drmies (talk)04:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In war killing is OK. You're just not able to see that. I was here for WP but you cant build an NPOV encyclopedia on fake news no matter how many so called RS exist. Im done with you here discussing this topic as explained below. Im taking a long break. Doing some things that are real. I'll see you for the I told you so edits.SaintAviator05:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The war is but in your head. Every single person who went postal and killed innocent passers-by also thought they were at war of some sort. You know, for a Kremlin troll you're too conspicuous even by their incompetency standards.217.91.160.45 (talk)08:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that killing isnever OK, even at war. However, this is not the point. You did not talk about killing at war. You talked about killing a few specific people who were not guilty of anything except expressing their personal opinion and performing their peaceful work as a journalist, a politician and an expert. Moreover, you talked about these killings as about something that has been approved not only by you, but byRussian people. As I said, that was extreme soapboxing in WP space.My very best wishes (talk)15:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a pacifist. Its a violent world.[22] Topic over here. Continue at your page without me. Further comments will be deleted.SaintAviator22:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You aretopic banned for three months from articles related to Russia and Vladimir Putin, both broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned due to repeatedforum-like comments on talk pages and POV-pushing related to the topic area. Repeated attempts by administrators and other editors to get you to focus on content and policies rather than your beliefs about Russia, Putin, the mainstream media, the West, and other related topics have been unsuccessful.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described atWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read thebanning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may beblocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process describedhere. I recommend that you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Rob₁₃^Talk14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome was expected with a high probability due to my targetting of Wikipedias problems on Jimbos page, the uptick of attacks on the flaws in WP, esp in relation to Russophobia anti Putin Elitist MSM. I wear this ban with honor as a fighter for truth in the 'Good Fight'. Thank You.SaintAviator21:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order, I didn't see your posts on Jimbo's page (not on my watchlist) and largely agree that Wikipedia is flawed in many ways (and regularly attempt to fix said flaws). This topic ban is a function of your behavior, nothing more. To be clear, continued comments about "Russophobia anti Putin Elitist MSM" would violate your topic ban. ~Rob₁₃^Talk01:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few people trying to do good here. Before reading this I read the message above and replied to Drmies above who misquoted me, which deserved a reply because it steered my reply to MVBW away from my message. However I have posted enough here, on my home page and in other places on "Russophobia anti Putin Elitist MSM" to be able to say Ive done enough on those topics. I will add I went down that road due to motive searching and then highlighting said motives as an explanation for the constant edit wars surrounding topics which were being misconstrued imho, for the reasons given. Thats all we have in the end. Our integrity our choices and the consequences of them.SaintAviator04:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is rampantSaintAviator09:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of which: Volunteer Marek's user name is "Volunteer Marek", OK? Thank you. No need to say anything else but "OK".Drmies (talk)16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never called him anything else but his deletions of my comments changed the flow and disrupted the thread. But you know this.

You and other editors here at Wikipedia may find this interesting.

Unfortunately for both, this has not been well-received among others. Fram initially stated he was removing the sanction, but rescinded that when it was noted he is not allowed to do that unilaterally. Even so, many of the usual suspects started showing up to protect GoldenRing's sanction, including Marek's good pal Drmies who also blocked the IP user with whom Marek had been feuding and had alerted Samsara to the DREAM Act edits. He relayed this to Samsara using all of his usual grace.http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1840

And this

Handful of “highly toxic” Wikipedia editors cause 9% of abuse on the siteNew study of Wikipedia comments reveals most attackers aren’t anonymous.

"Perhaps surprisingly, approximately 30% of attacks come from registered users with over a 100 contributions." In other words, a third of all personal attacks come from regular Wikipedia editors who contribute several edits per month. Personal attacks seem to be baked into Wikipedia culture.

The researchers also found that an outsized percentage of attacks come from a very small number of "highly toxic" Wikipedia contributors. A whopping 9% of attacks in 2015 came from just 34 users who had made 20 or more personal attacks during the year. "Significant progress could be made by moderating a relatively small number of frequent attackers," the researchers note. This finding bolsters the idea that problems in online communities often come from a small minority of highly vocal users.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/one-third-of-personal-attacks-on-wikipedia-come-from-active-editors/

But again you may know all this. Im contacting Katherine Maher about this. In the climate of outing of harrassment she may jump on this orchestrated systemic personal attack culture. One day someone will.SaintAviator19:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That stat actually doesn't make sense. It is to be expected that on any site where users contribute content, that regular users will contribute a higher volume of both positive and negative content. It surprises me that of the 34 regular users who contributed to this statistic, that the figure was as low as 9%, given that the most prolific users in talk spaces out-post the less prolific on a steep curve. Either the researchers overlooked this or you are not supplying the full extent of the info used to create the survey or the conclusions it reached. Also not taken into account is the fact that people whoonly come here to make "toxic" edits are quickly restricted in what they can contribute to the site. This results in high turnover/account creation among more excitable and angry editors, leaving only those who are frequently disposed to a bit of tongue lashing, but are not restricted or are admonished in other ways because their contributions outweigh their perceived negative impact. In any case I can't see how any juggling of the figures regarding subjectively "negative" posts wouldnot produce a set of data which could be used to write a smear piece about the editing environment. You could basically take any figures you like from the data set you are using and come back with a report that within what ever group, there's a lot of bad content being produced. That makes this a junk survey and a non-article as far as its impact on my personal experience of the site is concerned. On a personal note I think that I've received reasonable feedback almost every time I've made reasonable contributions here, and my only experience of having had negative feedback has been when I've argued against policy or due to a lack of understanding, made some kind of error and then stood behind it as if I hadn't.Edaham (talk)02:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SaintAviator. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was clear from the very start that you were a Kremlinbot. Your English is too good to be a result of Russian education, so I must ask this: why don't you go back to Russia, pal, where you can fully embrace Putin, Olgino troll factory, eating pancakes from a shovel and sitting down on a bottle?217.91.160.45 (talk)10:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol.....idiotSaintAviator23:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BladeOfTheAntipodes03:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SaintAviator. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw thatthe comment you added here was signed by a user that doesn't exist (BladeOfTheAntipodes), soI fixed it using a generic format. By all means you can edit it further to add any customizations.

You may have accidentallycustomized your signature like this. (For example maybe you were considering changing your username, so you drafted a signature, then accidentally saved it.)It looks like you've been using the wrong one since at least 2018. On the other hand, if it was intentional, please be aware thatthat's considered impersonation/forgery,which is unacceptable.
—W.andrea (talk)21:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened there. Its been awhile since I have been on WP. Ill try the signature again. --BladeOfTheAntipodes 09:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Hmmm I seem to remember playing around with shadows and styles but dont know how this came to be here. Ill get some time soon to go back to Saint Aviator. Gotta work out how its done again. Meanwhile Ill just sign here, and come back next week. I think I was considering changing my user name, but I cant be sure. Too much has been going on. --BladeOfTheAntipodes09:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed this issue coming up again atTalk:Russo-Ukrainian War. It makes it very confusing for people reading the sections later. Please fix your signature to link to your actual username or get your username changed so this does not reoccur. Thank you!—Ganesha811 (talk)23:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages forinappropriate discussions, as you did atRusso-Ukrainian War.Jr8825 •Talk00:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of anArbitration Committee decision. The thread isSaintAviator. Thank you.Jr8825 •Talk00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing indefinitely for persistently makingdisruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}06:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zombiepedia. You minions of the fallen west are barely thinking. You are so lost in lies. You probably dont evn knoe your onwned. I ban you permanently you fools.BladeOfTheAntipodes08:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Achange to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature does not contain a link to your user page, your user talk page, or your contributions page.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
4. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Change the signature to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
3. Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

More information is available atWikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message atWikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fileFile:Meher Babas Tomb.jpg has beenproposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andfiles for discussion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to thehistory of each individual page for details. Thanks,FastilyBot (talk)10:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]