User talk:Speakfor

Welcome!

Hi Speakfor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your english is quite poor. Your contributions need to make grammatical sense in order to publish. 84.69.243.41 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed a recent edit you made does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Hello, I'm Sakura emad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Kampf

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also keep in mind the 3-reert rule and do not restore the article to your preferred version while discussion is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2022 (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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republican insurgency in Afghanistan

Just to clarify my revert of your edits to the insurgency page: You removed reliable sources outright saying that the NRF holds no land, replacing them with sources which as far as I can see do not confirm that the NRF holds territory (mountain bases are not "territorial control"). Applodion (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of America has also been claiming "enormous" security progress has been in country.[1] This is also false.Speakfor (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of America is a reliable source and is one of the better ones when it comes to Afghanistan reporting, and we will not remove sourced information from it because you personally lack trust in it. Please don't do that again unless you have reliable sources to support your view. It will be considered disruptive editing. Them claiming that the security situation is improved since the Taliban takeover is not a reason to consider them unreliable. It is the prevailing viewpoint of analysts according to The Council on Foreign Relations: "Analysts say that the security situation has generally improved throughout Afghanistan, with fewer civilian casualties in 2022." 25stargeneral (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case. Source claimed "enormous" progress, which is not true. Just because you want to believe it is reliable doesn't mean it is. It took days for you to restore it. Documented security disruptions have been recorded from neutral sources. The Diplomat even did a thorough investigation in earlier 2022 which alleged media bias towards the security situation.[2]Speakfor (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "just because I want to believe it". It is the consensus view of Wikipedia. If you wish to contest the reliability of Voice of America, you must do so at the reliable sources noticeboard. Current consensus that it is reliable remains in place. But if your only "evidence" for its unreliability is that they said the security situation is improved, a view taken by at least some experts, I think you will come up empty-handed. Regardless, you have not provided a quality source that refutes VoA's claim that the NRF holds no territory. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally, at least in the form of territory concentration. [3] Another source backing the fact that they have a position in Andarab is from the article itself [4] It is misleading for sections of the article to claim they have no territory and not mention that they have positions. Claiming that they have no territory only suggests they also have no presence.Speakfor (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit it now because I am untrustworthy of how the deletion of my edits is being undertaken.Speakfor (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources say they hold territory. Just that they're active. Hence why the sentence you're deleting in the article says "...but continues to carry out hit-and-run guerilla attacks." By contradicting what a reliable source says without providing a contradictory reliable source, your edits did not adhere to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and had to be reverted. Nothing personal about it, but whether you trust that is up to you, I suppose. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

25stargeneral (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cocaine Bear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Speakfor! Your additions to Sex offender registries in the United States have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for to erase a reliable, encyclopedic edit.Speakfor (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed by your failure to read or understand any of the message I sent to you. Copyright issues are serious. By readding a potential copyright violation into the article, you risk being indefinitely blocked. The fact you reverted my edit, adding a copyright violation into an article, and reading none of the message above is concerning. I've cleaned up for you for this. I'd strongly recommend rereading the message above (although it appears you actually haven't read it at all) and reading Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you wish to continue editing here. But if you continue ignoring editors' advice and adding copyright violations, it's very likely you'll just get blocked. --Ferien (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to do it "my words," so I did it that way. I don't want any more excuses to erase the edit.Speakfor (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you added wasn't your own words though. It was copied from another article. That needs mentioning in the edit summary, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Copyright issues aren't excuses to erase the edit. --Ferien (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AV Club Source I pulled up about Shazam Is Accurate

Please read source.[5] The Numbers.com box office numbers for the Weekend show dull numbers as well.[6] Speakfor (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Chicago mayoral election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2023 (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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]