User talk:CaptainPrimo

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amy Jackson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

now based in [[London]] travelling to [[Chennai]] and other places around the world for work.<ref>"[https://twitter.com/i_am_amyjackson Amy Jackson," ''Twitter'', 06 March 2014.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{flagdeco|Iraq|1991}} [[Free Iraqi Army]]<<ref name="aljazeera.com">http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121112193038751565.
*10 August, Kurdish forces retook Mahmour and Gwer from ISIS.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/11/236000/us-airstrikes-helped-but-kurds.html U.S. airstrikes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masdar

we don't use Pro-gov sources for government advance.Alhanuty (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm Josh3580. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Survivor: San Juan del Sur with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Survivor: Caramoan, 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. Gloss 07:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Amala (actress). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 19:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sudesh Berry

The article Sudesh Berry has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted 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}} 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Amala (actress). 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. Please be mindful to include a source when making material changes to any article, taking special care to source all changes when dealing with WP:BLP articles. This is now the fourth time you have been reminded of our policy on verifiability. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require assistance. Continued changes in this manner will result in a suspension of editing privileges. Yamaguchi先生 00:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notification

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. 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 logged here. 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. Tradedia^talk 09:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citation at Rabindranath Tagore

Thanks for fixing the missing braces in your citation here. Unfortunately it looks like there are still a few problems with the citation that it might be easiest for you to fix.

If you scroll down to the "Citations" section, you'll see that a Cite error is being generated, as you've invoked a ref named <Silva/> without defining it.
It's not entirely clear what "K. M. de Silva and Howard Wriggins" at the beginning of the note refers to in the context of the footnote.
Because you used {{efn}} instead of ref tags to contain your citations, it's showing up in the Notes section instead of the Citations section, despite being just a set of citations. It might make more sense to frame the citations as a series of <ref></ref> tags so they point straight to the Citations section, eliminating the middle man, as it were.

I'd fix these issues, but at least for the first two I'm not sure what the intent was or whether there might be something missing. So I thought I'd give you a heads up. Cheers, AtticusX (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion decline

I have removed your submission at WP:3O. After reviewing the linked Talk page, I note that there has not been a thorough discussion there. Please be aware that there must be significant discussion at the Talk page as a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. If you feel that further discussion at the Talk page currently will not be productive, I would invite you to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CaptainPrimo. Voting in the 2016 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.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop reverting redirects, such as you did at Nikki Randall (actress). These articles don't meet the standard for inclusion. Flat Out (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CaptainPrimo. Voting in the 2017 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.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RN filing

Without weighing in on the merits of your filing (I'm not an admin), I would note that you failed to complete several portions of the filing, and it may fail on that basis alone. ETA: It is also malformed, as you did not provide diffs where requested. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CaptainPrimo. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Kill Bill: Volume 1. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kill Bill: Volume 1 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—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. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rodney Reed. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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 noticeboards.
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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rodney Reed, you may be blocked from editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Rodney Reed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Reed

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion on the dispute board. This seems like a blatant attempt to deprive readers of information everyone knows is properly influential in evaluating the underlying case. Most important, there's a strong consensus to include it. Thanks again. John2510 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ngo

CaptainPrimo, The Andy Ngo article is currently under 1RR, i.e., a "one revert rule" where 1 revert is permitted by an editor within a 24 hour period. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with information about articles under 1RR by reading the content at the top of the Andy Ngo talk page. Keep in mind that "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert." Additional linked information can be found here: WP:1RR and WP:NOT3RR. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainPrimo, thanks for weighing in on this page. I have a lot of concerns about impartiality but it's a difficult page to navigate given the restrictions. I've seen a number of good intentioned editors get tbanned for what might normally be seen as minor things. Please be careful and keep your cool on the page. Your updated arguments are starting to sway me. I would be interested in your take on other parts of the article. Springee (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the contentious nature and monitoring of the page. If you are swayed by my argument comment in support. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other issues, its hard for me to contend with them (even though I don't approve) when leftists dominate media sources that Wikipedia deems reliable. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on topic

I want to give both you and BeŻet a reminder to stay on topic at the Andy Ngo talk page. The conversation [1][2] is beginning to stray into a wider discussion about Andy Ngo; it's usually easier to reach consensus if we focus on the immediate topic at hand which is how to best present what the sources say about it. I went ahead and collapsed that part of the discussion so that we can move forward with more productive discourse. Thanks and happy editing! –dlthewave ☎ 22:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Disappearance of Gabby Petito can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. WuTang94 (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of advice: one thing I've learned about being on Wikipedia is that sometimes you can't really go against certain editors on heavily-edited pages, especially if they tend to sway one way. --WuTang94 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]