User talk:Walsak

Welcome!

Hello, Walsak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Istanbul attack

Please explain on the talk page here [[1]] why this should be included in the article?

Ms Mensch is an ex MP, and of no real importance any more, and who is Lenarz?

Please do not re-insert this without explaining why it should be there.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at New Right, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2016 Montpellier attack

The article 2016 Montpellier attack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page about an event does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA as it is a routine news event (murder). Local police determined it was not a terrorist attack nor had any clear political motivation. see

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Walsak,

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The event in Montpellier did not turn out to be a terrorist attack, so I believe it is not notable enough. This is why I have proposed deletion.

Sincerely, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

London incident

Hi, Walsak. Could you explain why you've added this to the London incident article? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 Paris attack

a. I heard gunshots in my neighborhood a few days ago; please write up the article.

b. If you're going to write up every single thing even without sources, and without any evidence that it matters, try to get it right. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of June 2017 Paris attack

The article June 2017 Paris attack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Too soon. We have no idea of knowing whether this will mean something or not--in the meantime, it is not good encyclopedic practice to jump on every news item, given NOTNEWS.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Killing of Xanda the lion

Thanks for contributing to the article Killing of Xanda the lion. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Killing of Xanda the lion

The article Killing of Xanda the lion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable unreferenced article

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Killing of Xanda the lion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killing of Xanda the lion 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Xanda the lion 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Henry Jackson Society

I am not sure what you mean by your edits here and here, but please don't remove important, properly-presented, and well-sourced material.

The descriptor here is directly supported by four citations: two news articles in The Guardian, a book published by the University of Wisconsin Press, and The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism published by Cambridge University Press. These are very high-quality sources. Neutrality^talk 13:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Please don't.

You've made a change that clearly doesn't reflect consensus. Your best course of action is now to discuss the matter on the article's Talk page. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to a charge of edit warring.

I understand that you don't agree with this characterization. I'm happy to accept that the Henry Jackson Society would dispute it. That's interesting, but it's not definitive. We don't allow the subject of an article to dictate what the article says about them. To take a topical example, imagine what Robert Mugabe's article would look like if we gave priority to the opinions of Mugabe and his associates.

The way you've been acting makes it less likely, rather than more likely, that this description will be changed. Please try a different approach. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 Brighton siege for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Brighton siege 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Brighton siege 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. Sport and politics (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2017 invasion of Kurdistan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2017 invasion of Kurdistan. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Battle of Kirkuk (2017). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Battle of Kirkuk (2017). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, I'm TJH2018. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2017 Parsons Green bombing without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TJH2018talk 15:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.

Don't worry too much, we've all done it. The important thing is to learn from it. BTW, the article is fine at its current location, your title has been turned into a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Thornton, Colorado shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thornton, Colorado shooting 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton, Colorado shooting 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Motive = atheism

Not a valid claim. Please refrain from adding it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Bartholomew (American chess player)

The article John Bartholomew (American chess player) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Abishe (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of John Bartholomew (American chess player) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Bartholomew (American chess player) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bartholomew (American chess player) 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

We have an editor here who is obviously not here to constructively edit, but often deletes large amounts of content, including whole articles. Their WP:COMPETENCE is lacking. A long block is needed. When one examines their contribution history and all the warnings on this page, it's amazing they have a clean block log. SMH. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disabling the adminhelp template for now—I've asked User:BullRangifer to take this to WP:ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Breitbart News.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You blatantly ignored the note that says "DO NOT CHANGE without consensus. See Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead?" - MrX 02:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. - MrX 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Kerner article

Regarding this, read WP:LEAD and WP:COI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary 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 is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that 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} 03:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on Stephen Miller

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please check the talk page. And stop edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Walsak. Voting in the 2018 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

January 2021 bombing of the Israeli embassy in India moved to draftspace

The title of the article & the content of the article do not correlate. Furthermore I’m incubating this per WP:NOTNEWS.

Vandalism

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2021, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:January 2021 bombing of the Israeli embassy in India

Hello, Walsak. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:January 2021 bombing of the Israeli embassy in India, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:January 2021 bombing of the Israeli embassy in India

Hello, Walsak. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "January 2021 bombing of the Israeli embassy in India".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)