User talk:Santurwoman

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ahmed Jabari. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Operation Pillar of Cloud, you may be blocked from editing. Lihaas (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ahmed Jabari, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Kindly read WP:WTA. Your edits are flagrantly in violation and you have been warned,Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -had to, the article was/is biased and an 'all to good press' for this Terrorist and mass murderer Jabari (he shall rot in muslim hell!) Sorry for not-pc! --Santurwoman (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for tendentious editing on Ahmed Jabari. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting self created pages

If you want a page deleted that you created yourself and nobody else has made signifcant edits, replace the content with {{db-author}}. An administrator will delete it if the criteria fits. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind help! --Santurwoman (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Please read WP:RS - websites aren't automatically considered reliable sources, and I can't see anything about the two you used recently that suggest that they are reliable sources according to our criteria.

Thank you for your information. --Santurwoman (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NPOV - this applies to asserting as fact a disputed date, which you've been doing, and using non-standard terminology and spelling, eg Moshes instead of Moses, mass revelation to refer to Moses and the 10 commandments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. --Santurwoman (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mass-revelation vs individual revelations (St. Paul, Mohammed or Mr. Joseph Smith (Mormon))

mass-revelation: so called '10 commandments' were given to jewish people _and_ moses by god at mount sinai - info not mentioned in article.

December 2012

Hello, I'm Sue Rangell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Tutankhamun, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sue Rangell!

Thank you for your kind notice at my talk page! I do appreciate it, indeed!

Q: Why did you undo my recent BCE "contributions, such as the one (..) Tutankhamun"? Why don't you consider it constructive?

Please consider my minor BCE-edits an edit of good faith! My motivation was to change the christian statement of faith, which underlies the BC / AD notions, into a more universal one, for en:wikipedia is not for Christian recipients only - nor a Christian platform for the unrefined propagation of faith! (I would say BC fits perfectly in with Christiandome related articles!)

While I never touch any christian related wikipedia article with BC->BCE edits, the ancient egyptian Tutankhamun is simply not related to Christiandome anyhow, so I consider my BCE edits very constructive - as a means to alleviate it from it's christian 'BC'-bias!

Pls. kindly notice further, that BCE could be dually read as : #1 Before Christian Era and #2 Before Comon Era, something which does not need to offend Christians anyway! (But why it does? I would say, because it is a weaker form of propaganda of the Xtian faith!)

In contrast, to state BC, which means Before Christ, is simply an expression of faith, which is false in a neutral point of view and does not apply - at least to me, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists ....

In my religion/faith, there are a lot of Christs: King David and King Cyrus, to mention a few! Why- you may ask. Both could be titled Christ, which is latin for Messiah, which is greek for 'anointed one', because they are anointed one's indeed! You may ask what the heck does before christ mean anyway, then, outside a christian context. The BC / AD notions bear the implicit cultural christian information of before the christian Christ - almost lost in it's traditional christian use - , because Judaism does reject Jesus as a jewish messiah since more than 2000 bloody years now. Ask some Christians how many Christs are in the bible, they certainly will get it false: Jesus, while in fact there are many more Christs mentioned in the bible! ( There is not only the president of USA, Obama, France also has it's own president.)

O.K. Sue -- I will now redo my BCE edit - just this one time again - with an added reference and citation, I think fits in the article, and you may undo it to BC - if you still consider it unconstructive, consensus?

Thank you for your great engagement with en:wikipedia!! Sincerely, --Santurwoman (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to go read WP:ERA, our policy on changing datestyles. All changes such as the ones you are making to articles with established date styles must be discussed on the article talk pages first, and can only be changed if a consensus of editors decides the change is merited. He iro 05:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you , Heironymous Rowe, for the info! I will ad a suggestion to the discussion, than. We will see if that 'discussion' will change anything ;) --Santurwoman (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipolicy

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

* Please don't be alarmed by that banner. We are friends! It's suggested that we use it to inform people that we are talking about them. At first I wasn't even going to bother you with this, but since I alluded to the BC-BCE thing, I thought I should as a courtesy. I don't think you are editing in bad faith. I just want to find out what the policy is on BC-BCE, assuming there is one. You seem real nice. I just wanted to get clarification about what the policy is. That would be good for both of us, don't you agree? :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I thought it was going to make a big scary-looking banner. Good! That was upsetting me. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has just this kind small blueish i banner. I appreciate the automatism than, too! -- Thank you! --Santurwoman (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baptism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Tendentious editing

Despite several prior warnings, many of your edits have again been overtly tendentious and incompatible with the goal of a neutral point of view. For instance, here and here, your edits assert the opinion of a political lobbying group as if they were undisputed facts. This is unacceptable.

Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions, I am notifying you that you may be blocked from editing or placed under permanent editing restrictions (e.g. a topic ban) if you continue to make unacceptable edits in this topic area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to NAS4Free 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Order of the Phoenix (fiction), you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry --85.183.56.74 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Noah's Ark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phoenix

Phoenix (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tree of Knowledge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --85.183.56.74 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:PrimeNetActivitySummary2013-05-12.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PrimeNetActivitySummary2013-05-12.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Freeletics

Proposed deletion of Freeletics

The article Freeletics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

irrelevant, too small business/"Freemium", only few users

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. -- 77.4.64.118 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/USAF equivalent

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/USAF equivalent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/Israeli Air Force

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/Israeli Air Force has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Spain-small

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Spain-small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United Kingdom-small

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United Kingdom-small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United States-40px

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United States-40px has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Turkey-small

Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Turkey-small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]