User talk:John "Hannibal" Smith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bottega Veneta

Could you help me understand what parts of the article gave you concern to flag it with those maintenance tags? I'm genuinely interested and want to work towards remedying a fix.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the tags pretty much explain it:

• After seeing a number of the edits in progress, it became obvious that one or more people writing/editing the article had a close connection to the subject, hence the COI tag. I see that you are paid by clients to edit, so no surprise there.
• Overall, it's written more like a brochure or ad than an encyclopedia article, hence the advert tag.

It's really the whole article, not just specific parts. I would say, when you write/edit, think more like a journalist or historian than an advertiser. You may need to run it by some other third parties to get their insight on revisions. I'm happy to answer specific questions, but I really don't have interest in editing the article. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Web Search Engine

Hi

I am new to editing and want to understand more of the edit that you reverted. Looks like you reverted the edit where I corrected the spelling of "Caching" in the link. It was incorrectly spelled as "Cacheing". Did I do something wrong in correction, because of which it was reverted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raybrighton2016 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Raybrighton2016

Thanks for asking. You did the right thing by coming and discussing things with me, so kudos for that. I went back and took a closer look. The anti-vandalism tool I'm using (Huggle) shows diffs b/t different versions. It looked like you were changing "cache" to "cach". When I went back, it became clearer that someone previously had made some funky internal links and put the "ing" outside the link code and I missed that part. I went and fixed it and removed the warning template from your talk page. Take a look at the revision I made or the article source code so you know how to fix it if you see something like that again. (Which you probably will.) Your edit was clearly in good faith - you just didn't realize someone else had made a previous mistake that needed fixing too. One of my personal flaws as an editor is that whenever I see a new user take a special interest in SEO or search engine marketing pages, my internal red flags go up, and I instantly become suspicious that they are a spammer...and may not give them as much benefit of the doubt as I should. So I admit that, and I'm working on it. :) You have my apology...you didn't do anything wrong. I added a welcome message to your talk page with some helpful links. I recommend spending some time working through them...it will make your time here much more fruitful. BTW, Please sign and date your Talk Page posts by typing four tildes. Best of luck, and feel free to ask questions again anytime. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. I am not sure if this is the right way to reply to current conversation but I really appreciate your response. I really like Technology, Photography, Spirituality pages and frequently use them. Most of my natural edits will come to those and I really appreciate the help you are providing. Cheers. Raybrighton2016 (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the right to respond...by placing your response under the previous one. Just a tip, when you respond, in the code, indent your reply by adding the appropriate number of colons before your reply (one more colon than the previous author). Just look at the source code here (via the "edit source" link) to see what I mean. Excellent...those are great topics, and ones that interest me too. No problem...I shouldn't prejudge anyone no matter what topic they go for. Nothing is wrong with internet marketing topics...it's just there seem to be a lot of folks who are stuck in 2003 and think adding links on Wikipedia is a great way to boost their Google ranking. :O SMH. No problem...always happy to help. Seriously, if you ever need help or have questions, feel free to hit me up. Go and do great things, friend. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Macrophilia wiki

Hi! You reversed a change I made, and I was about to upload a second source to it!

This was the original edit I made: Starting in 2016, a size enthusiasts group in New York City began running an annual inclusive Size Convention for those interested in Giants, tinies, expansion, inflation, voraphilia and more.

The reason I feel this is appropriate, is because it's another way in which macrophiles and microphiles can celebrate and experience the fantasy - subsequently, it's also been covered by the media. I'm curious as to what the criteria is for content on this wiki page. Personally as a female macrophile, me and many other women find this wiki article to provide inaccurate information. For example why does something like this exist on this page?

"Commenting on why there are not as many female macrophiles, psychologist Helen Friedman theorized that because women in most societies already view men as dominant and powerful, there is no need for them to fantasize about it. Women that take on the roles of the giantess within this fetish often find the practice to be empowering and enjoy being worshipped."

There are a ridiculous amount of female macrophiles, way outnumbering the amount of female microphiles (giantesses), yet we're still citing articles from the 90's from this wikipedia page. Mind you, we've reached out to Dr. Friedman several times over the years about this with no response from her office. Being a macrophile is submissive in nature, and EVERY study shows MOST women have submissive fantasies - so her argument just doesn't jive with the actual facts. I'm a bit disappointed that this page obviously focuses on giantess, and completely ignores the female, bi, gay and trans people in the community, as well as the size switchers (just like switches in BDSM).

I really want to clean up this page and make it more inclusive by using gender neutral terms. This is the first page that I stumbled upon when I found out I was a macrophile, and it skewed my perception of the fetish for a long time - As soon as I found my community, I felt like a black sheep. Please let me know what I can do to better serve this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6097:F400:91B8:2259:5083:5EA9 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. The link is solely commercial/promotional and for that reason alone, links to that website are not appropriate. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo massacre

As for 16.12.2016 there is no any photo or video evidence of the massacre.It id disgusting to see how Wikipedia turned into fakenews and propaganda tool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.177.20 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with content, you need to cite reliable sources and provide an explanation in the edit summary. Just going and deleting information based solely on personal knowledge, opinion or anecdotes, isn't a good enough reason. It's easy...if you're right, then do some research and find reliable sources to back you up, and include those in your edits. If there is disagreement among editors, take it to the article's talk page to discuss with other editors and reach consensus. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bouduard reaction

Dear John_"Hannibal"_Smith, I made a change regarding the "exothermicity" of the reaction. I'm currently reading Anju Dahiya, "Bioenergy: Biomass to biofuels" and found the Bouduard reaction to be exothermal (page 263). Not content with the difference found between the book and wikipedia, I made further research and found another article mentioning the reaction as exothermal: Jacob Hunt, "Microwave-Specific Enhancement of the Carbon−Carbon Dioxide(Boudouard) Reaction". Sorry for not notifying the change, this was my first wikipedia edit and I was in kind of a hurry. Thanks in advance for your help and support. Kind regards, David Antonio Buentello Montoya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.230.10.218 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for clarifying. :) John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of External Links for Chris Ward

Hello John_"Hannibal"_Smith, Can you please clarify the removal of election results box. I'm not sure how it was inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Many elected officials articles include results. - Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1453 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines on external links. "Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product." See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. The link is solely promotional. VOTEforWARD.com - Do I really need to explain how that's promo-only? Come on now. Also, after reviewing a list of your edits, they seem to be mainly promotional for politicians, which brings a bit of a conflict of interest there. So please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines as well. Thank you. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Oxfam

Could you please explain this. First, I strongly assume the removal of the entire section on Oxfam IBIS (Denmark) was a mistake and strongly urge you to reinsert these parts. The part I guess you objected to is calling Regavim pro-settlement. Do you know this organisation or did you revert simply because it was an edit in the ever-contested Israeli–Palestinian conflict? I urge you to read Regavim, which clearly states that it "is a pro-settler Israeli NGO", which is the exact wording I used in my edit to Oxfam. Please explain why you object to this classification of the organization. If you do, please also correct Regavim's own article with reliable sources. If the revert was a mistake, no problem, it happens and is entirely understandable when seeing edits that relate to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please add possible replies here (keeping things together); I'll keep a watch. Regards, 80.62.117.179 (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that edit was not a mistake. I think the warning template I placed on your talk page was pretty self-explanatory: "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Oxfam seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now." That's literally what it was. Your edit seemed to have a certain slant, and also seemed like you may have a connection to the subject of the article. On that note, please become familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I see that you are new, so I recommend that you spend some time getting to know Wikipedia's policies, and become familiar with how things work. First, when someone reverts your edit, assume good faith - don't assume it is malicious. Also, it doesn't mean the end of the world, or that another editor is disparaging your work. That's not the case. Just take the advice given, and go back and rework things, and make the edit again, after fixing the issues. One item of note: Please be especially aware of neutrality issues when discussing sensitive middle-east issues. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I did assume good faith and I believe that was clear from my post. However, if there were any doubts: I have absolutely no reason to assume bad faith on your part. Since you seem to suggest COI, I have none: I have no involvement with Oxfam, Regavim, any related organizations or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I assume the same is true for you. Back on subject: It remains unclear to me why calling the organization pro-settlement is not neutral when it is their main objective. If you believe it is factually wrong, it is an entirely different discussion and the article for the organization should be corrected, too. In the above (+template on my page) you did not say why. Why is it unneutral to mention an organizations main objective? Regardless, I don't have very strong feelings about that part and if you want it out of Oxfam -- okay by me. Leaving that issue behind, do you have any objections to the Oxfam IBIS (Denmark) part and if so, what? Unless you object, I'll add that part again. Regards, 80.62.117.179 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. No worries. Same here. If I could just offer my two cents...have a couple others review what you want to post and possibly offer some feedback/revision on the specific neutrality and COI issues. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on those. If you have any other more specific questions...you can pose them on the article's talk page to get feedback as well. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the unproblematic Oxfam IBIS (Denmark) part again, but leave out the Regavim part you objected to. 80.62.117.179 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I think with a little reworking, you can add back all of it. Be bold! :) John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yoshinoya

Hi, I'd like to know why you reverted my edit. The kanji 吉 does not mean "old", it means "good fortune". Someone seems to have got it mixed up with the kanji 古, which does mean "old". The alternative kanji 𠮷, which is also mentioned in the same entry, is an alternative to 吉, with the same meaning of "good fortune". But on their website, Yoshinoya seem to use the regular 吉 kanji. https://www.yoshinoya.com/

See here for some sources on the meaning of 吉 http://jisho.org/search/%E5%90%89 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%90%89 http://www.kanjidamage.com/kanji/248-good-omen-%E5%90%89

211.19.59.224 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of the time people get edits reverted, it's simply because the editor isn't providing solid evidence. When you make edits, you need to cite reliable sources and provide an explanation in the edit summary. This comes into play even more with foreign languages (on articles in English), and especially languages that use different (symbolic) character sets. I know a few languages (at least just enough to be dangerous!), but I don't know a thing about Japanese. What you just gave me now is great...but I'm not the one who needs it...bring that to the article. :) Just going and deleting information based solely on personal knowledge, opinion or anecdotes, isn't a good enough reason, and it can make edits seem suspicious. (Even if you are right.) It's easy...in general, do some research and find reliable sources to back you up, and include those in your edits and edit summary. If there is disagreement among editors, take it to the article's talk page to discuss with other editors and reach consensus. If you follow this, you won't have too many edits reverted. Thank you for sharing this info...I have learned something new about the kanji. :) John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

On "Neutral Opinions"

If you are indeed a human as opposed to a bot, you did not allow my right to freely edit an article on the grounds of the edit not being a "neutral opinion". However, the article in question is absolutely biased TOWARDS the slaughter, eating and enslavement of Dolphins and Whales in japan. It is very clear that the portion i had edited was written by a japanese citizen who is working FOR the Dolphin and Whale slaughter industry. Tell me again, how is it that the current article on Taiji Drive Hunts is neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.168.148.108 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

First off, please review my 3 rules above:

1. ASSUME GOOD FAITH -- If another editor reverts your edit, don't automatically assume it is malicious or personal. Consider that they may have had a good reason to, and try to figure out what it is. AGF is a two-way street.
2. BE CIVIL -- Don't come out of the gate in attack mode, or harass, badger, or troll on this page. I'm here to help, so please remember that. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia Etiquette, please familiarize yourself. Anyone who does not follow this rule will be ignored.
3. HELP ME HELP YOU -- If I post links in my response to you, please read them and become familiar with them. They're important.

Ouch...Questioning my humanity, is not exactly following the ASSUME GOOD FAITH. You do have the free right to edit articles, BUT, you have to do it the Wikipedia way. To quote what I posted on your page: "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Taiji dolphin drive hunt seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now."

That is not something to get upset about. You are both right, and wrong at the same time. I wasn't advocating the edit of the person before you...I was pointing out that your edits weren't neutral either. The article comes off as very opinionated, where it needs to be more encyclopedic in tone. Believe me, I agree mostly with your viewpoints...I would say the same thing to myself if I were the editor. Words and phrases like "cruel slaughter method", "They fruitlessly attempted to find flaws in the activists' arguments", "instructing a cruel slaughter method, like killing a kangaroo child by hitting it" probably need to be toned down and shifted to less emotional and more neutral language. Try to cover both sides of the debate, and show pros/cons for each side. When someone reverts one of your edits, it's not an insult, so try not to take it that way. Take it as an opportunity to learn. If you have questions, I am happy to help. Just don't call me a robot next time, k? ;) John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. There is no citation. It is an editorial choice

I think that using the word "adventure" sums up "what happened" better and is more respectful of the reader's time. It prepares the reader for the information that they are going to receive. Do you think it is biased to call the events an adventures? I started a new section at the talk page. Please contribute there. If you do not participate in the next two hours, then I am going to re-assert my edits.--130.65.254.8 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

When we make edits, we need to cite reliable sources and provide an explanation in the edit summary. Those are Wikipedia core guidelines, so that's not really an editorial choice. Do a test: Make a series of edits following this, and then make a series of edits that do not. See which ones get reverted, and see which ones do not. Then I think you will see why it's so important. It also helps other editors understand what you're thinking and why you're making the edits. Without reliable sources, no one would be able to verify anything, and this would be just one big gossip site, not an encyclopedia. Personally I'd like to hear more about these "adventures" as it could be fascinating. Just a note, when you start a conversation, you reply to the conversation on the page where it was started...you don't go back and forth between different pages. Best of luck and feel free to ask questions again in the future. John_"Hannibal"_Smith (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Imogen Says Nothing

Hi, I'm sorry I'm still really unclear on how these talk pages work. I removed a bunch of content from the Imogen Says Nothing page, which you then incorrectly restored. The play is still being produced and the playwright is still making some edits, so it is not correct to have as detailed of a summary up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkchang13 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gkchang13,

You'll notice in the note I left on your talk page, I said:

"I noticed that in this edit to Imogen Says Nothing, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary."

When someone deletes content without explaining why in the edit summary, it is almost guaranteed to get reverted by recent changes patrollers because Wikipedia automatically flags it as possible vandalism. On Wikipedia, it's not enough to be correct in your own mind, you have to communicate why you are right. In your next edit you added this explanation, "The play is still being produced and the script is being changed. It is not appropriate/ accurate to have the more detailed description of the plot until the play has finished its production run." That is a good explanation, and would likely prevent further rollbacks. However, it presents another dilemma if that is true: The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and needs to be deleted. If the play isn't complete yet, then how can it be notable? In the guidelines it also states:

"Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

Per the guidelines, I have placed a request for speedy deletion on the page. Once the play does meet the notability guidelines, I recommend you create a draft of a new article, and submit it for review before publishing it. Then you can prevent these problems. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 20:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten HITMAN for you!

I've had enough. You've reverted too many edits before I could; So I sent my CAT HITMAN after you. Don't. Move.

Layla, the remover (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, heh. ;) Thanks! Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 23:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Athletics template reversions

Hi,

The recent edits you reverted are in fact templates with the same content they replaced. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings.

Regards, 82.15.89.239 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Whenever you delete content, you should be sure to leave a good explanation in the edit summary, otherwise, it looks suspicious. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 15:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Kurdistan Freedom Falcons

TAK is not a militant group

it is a terrorist group!

@86.130.88.177 That's irrelevant, and not why I reverted your edit. (That was 6 days ago, BTW.) You're blatantly pushing your own POV, without citing any reliable sources to back it up. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 16:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Polymorphic engine

I have put a link to the article from the computer press about polymorphic engine building in C++ and you remove it. It has no ads, was published in the press before, is 100% on topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WójcikBartosz (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's great, but that's your personal standard of acceptability, not Wikipedia's. You're completely ignoring Wikipedia's external link, spam, and conflict of interest policies, ignoring multiple warnings, and blatantly spamming Wikipedia. Here are a few reasons why you can't post links to your website:

1. Conflict of interest: You can not post links to sites (or edit articles) that you're associated with, per WP:COI
2. Not a reliable source: Your website does not qualify as a reliable source, per WP:RS
3. External Links: You're violating the external links policy, per WP:EXT
4. Spamming: Your links serve yourself, not Wikipedia or its readers. You are posting links to your site on multiple articles. Per WP:SPAM and WP:SPAMMER

Please take the time to read the linked articles above and familiarize yourself with these policies, and do not continue to post these links.Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 19:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey

Hey John, thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. Before using the source, I used our own Wikipedia to check and see if we had a page on Idolator and it was acquired by a media company. Then again, I generally don't use sources from publishers I'm not familiar about, but I figured in this case - it was alright. I'll find a different source.

Best Wishes,

AjayTO (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my contribution

Hi there. May I know my which contribution regarding the page "Anita Hassanandani" is wrong and may I know what is a sandbox and how to use it. Thank you. SBson1357 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

My contribution

Hi there. Since, a page of her filmography filmography doesn't exist yet so I added information regarding the movies in which she acted.

Regards, SBson1357 SBson1357 (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @SBson1357:

You didn't do anything wrong...It was some kind of weird glitch. Sorry about that. I left a note on your talk page, and reverted everything back to how you had it. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Outstanding news. Thank you. This will allow me to be more effective in counter-vandalism efforts. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Sure, thanks a lot. As I'm new to Wikipedia I don't don't have much idea about editing procedures and what is vandalising a page or information. So it's like I'm adding whatever correct information I have regarding regarding any page. Hence, I may end up unintentionally vandalising any particular page. SBson1357 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Just take some time to go through the links I posted on your talk page, and learn the basics. Just remember that all of your edits should be based on evidence, not personal knowledge or experience. When you make edits, cite a reliable source and explain why you made the edit in the edit summary. Try to stick to a neutral point of view when you edit, and represent both sides of things evenly, whether you hold those views or not. As long as you listen to other editors when they warn or try to help you, and follow the advice they give you, you should be fine. That's exactly what you did, so you're off to a good start. Carry on and do good things. :) Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 08:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

My contribution

Please keep helping me and let me know whether I have done anything right or wrong as I want to be a part of Wikipedia editing team and contribute as much as I know. SBson1357 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You got it. :) Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 08:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

DhoomBros

Hello, I noticed you removed my changes on the page of DhoomBros. I'll surely add the sources can you re add the changes again please. Thank you Beinganonymous (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Beinganonymous:,

Please read what I posted on your talk page. You need to cite a reliable source when you make edits, especially biographical edits. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 08:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Rape in India

Why is the same section on there twice in a row word-for-word? It doesn make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.66.83 (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You reverted more content than what was duplicated. I'm going to clean it all up. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 09:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I went and cleaned that section of the article up. The content was not exactly duplicated, there were subtle differences. It is fixed now. Duplicate content is removed, and I made some slight improvements to the grammar. Feel free to make edits based on the fixed version. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 10:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Australia Day

Hi John,

Thanks for letting me know about your recent reversion to my edit of the Australia Day page. I agree with the fact that Wikipedia refrains from taking any political standpoints. This is absolutely in line with the Wikipedia stance on Neutrality. However, it is also important to be factually accurate in articles as well; a single word can change the meaning of an entire text. In this case, I am of the firm objective belief that the word 'some' does not accurately describe the amount of important aboriginal figures who refer to Australia Day as Invasion Day. As someone who resides in Australia, many figures such as Pat Dodson, Noel Pearson, Adam Goodes, Nova Peris, and organisations such as the Aboriginal Tent Embassy have described Australia day in such a way. Additionally, a large majority of the Indigenous community refers to it as either Invasion or Survival day, however statistics for this are hard to come by as many Aboriginals live in remote communities.

I urge you to reconsider this edit, as it is done entirely in good faith to make the article more accurate, from an objective, non-political standpoint.

EDIT: If required I will try and find a reputable source, however to prove what I am saying would most likely require many different articles for what is essentially one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.44 (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.44 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can't get exact stats, at least cite a reliable source that describes this majority. The only way facts can be verified is by citing reliable sources. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 14:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response my peep. I will try to locate a source and re-edit in the future.

Mistake

You made mistake. Osman I was Sunni Muslim, like his successors and his Empire.24.135.148.150 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not a mistake. I wasn't reverting it because I thought the info wasn't true, but rather because you did not cite a reliable source. Please read what I posted on your talk page. When you make edits, you need to cite a reliable source. That's the only way others can verify that information is true. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 14:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with 14th century Anatolia is the great heterodoxy of its religious population. It is extremely hard to classify an individual from that era and region into a single religious category. It's true that Osman's successors eventually became orthodox Sunni Muslims. But so little is known about Osman (and absolutely nothing is known about his ancestors) that it cannot be said in good faith that he was a Sunni. Chamboz (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

dal-

The word roti is derived from the Sanskrit word रोटिका (roṭikā), meaning "bread".[4] Names in other languages are Hindi: रोटी; Assamese: ৰুটী; Nepali : रोटी; Bengali: রুটি; Sinhalese: රොටි; Gujarati: રોટલી; Marathi: पोळी; Odia: ରୁଟି; Malayalam: റൊട്ടി; Kannada: ರೊಟ್ಟಿ; Telugu: రొట్టి; Tamil: ரொட்டி; Urdu: روٹی‎; Dhivehi: ރޮށި; Punjabi: ਰੋਟੀ,ਫੂਲਕਾ; Thai: โรตี. It is also known as maani in Sindhi and phulka in Punjabi and Saraiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roti Roti is the hindi/urdu word only for rotta. dal- a dried legume (as lentils, beans, or peas); also : an Indian dish made of simmered and usually pureed and spiced legumes Origin and Etymology of dal Hindi & Urdu dāl First Known Use: 1673 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dal again a hindi/urdu word and by no means the universal word in india (which has 22 officially recognized languages). Dal (also spelled daal or dhal; Hindi/Urdu -from the wiki page on dal. Again you can see this is the hindi/urdu word alone and not some sort of pan-Indian, representative word. In fact I see this word repeated throughout the page and i'm going to go ahead and change the word to lentils since this is an english wiki and not an Urdu wiki. Please let me know any other sources that you may require or any further clarifications. Thank you.

Just be sure to cite reliable sources in your edits, and explain the changes in the edit summary and you'll be good to go. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 07:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

where would you like to me list the sources?

and how do i go about getting the name of a page changed?

the title of the page is dal, which is a word from simply ONE language in india, even though the article is english and we have a perfectly legible English word describing the item (lentils).

It doesn't make any sense not to title the page lentils and instead title it some particular non-english word.

It would make sense if the article was in hindi/urdu but that's not the case.

I normally try to mention what i've done in the edit summary.

Thank you

never mind, i see that the wiki page dal was in fact titled dal because it was specifically referring to urdu region's preparations of it. my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C4:4001:4748:F803:F464:A2FC:9D23 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whether I feel conflicted or getting pushed around.....

So apparently, several hours ago, I made a few contributions to a few articles on a ton of Ohio State Highways. Any time I saw that the National Highway System was mentioned, I simply put "a system of highways considered to be important to the nation's defense, economy, and mobility" at the end of the words "National Highway System". Some articles already had this little tidbit of information, but some didn't. So I went and filled the missing info in to those said articles. I even expanded a few sections while I was at it. Some time later, I got a message from you, saying that the new info doesn't have a source, even though it already did down in the "References". A short time later, I get two more notifications telling me to sod off, each one more rash than the last, claiming that what I'm doing was bringing controversial edits into and/or vandalizing the articles, even though I clearly wasn't. I'm not sure if those notifications were automated or not, but I feel rather conflicted. Tryin' my best not to sound harsh right now, but.....yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachl1226 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Zachl1226:,

No one was intending to make you feel uncomfortable. I'm sorry to hear you felt that way. No one wants you to "sod off", and in fact I hope you stay. One of the issues that is common among new users, is to make edits without citing a reliable source, and then when they receive a warning, they proceed to make the same edit again, without making the changes noted in the warning. By doing this, you inadvertently can fall into the category of edit warring, which is a form of vandalism. Be aware that you should not repeatedly revert edits from another editor, per the three revert rule. Please see this: How to edit a page. I posted a welcome message on your talk page with a number of helpful links. Please spend some time reading all of the linked pages. It will make your time here a lot more fruitful, and hopefully fun. If you receive a warning in the future, read the warning posted on your talk page carefully, and then make the noted changes. If you don't understand the reason for the warning, then go to the talk page of the editor who posted it, and ask politely if they can elaborate. Wait to get a response before proceeding. In most cases editors will be happy to help. Just like you did here...that is the right thing to do, so kudos. The sooner you do that, the quicker you can get back to editing. If I remember right, the roads in Ohio edits referenced the importance to something or other, but didn't cite a source where that came from. If you don't have a reliable source for something like that, it comes off as opinion or bias. (If remember the edit correctly.) Wikipedia has a {{WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]] so we don't want to insert superlatives to edits without having a basis for it. Hope that helps. Feel free to ask further questions. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 08:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

your (Message re. Andrej Babiš (HG) (3.1.22)) (Tag: Huggle)

hello,

yes I think you have made a mistake when reverting my edits where I tried to improve the text, fix typos, and provide the exact qoutations as published -- it is important as verification of an article.

Thanks. 107.77.221.150 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had reverted it because it appeared to be vandalism, and there was no explanation of the changes in the edit summary. I removed the warning template from your talk page. Just be aware that when you make edits, you're far less likely to have them reverted if you leave a good description of the edit in the edit summary, so I highly recommend you do that from now on. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 20:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell

Thank you for looking into my edit. I made the edit (substitution of a category for another, more accurate category) because the slim evidence about the subject's involvement with autism lacks any sourced evidence that he was a researcher of autism, but, instead, a popular writer who included two references to autism research done by others with little or no research of his own. Therefore, as autism-related categories are few, the next best option is the category "Autism activists" (a title which I believe should be "Autism advocates," instead, as it would work as well regarding protagonists and antagonists equally). There is no references, citation and source links which show Sowell as an autism researcher. His work about autism should, nonetheless, be categorized accurately and fairly.24.11.116.253 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your reversion of my categorization edit is supported within the WP Categorizing Pages guideline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages ). Your reversion stands (though it appears as much lacking evidence as the alternative).24.11.116.253 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@24.11.116.253: Your reasoning sounds solid to me. I would say, in a situation like this, post this explanation on the article talk page and ask for feedback from other editors. Then re-do the edit and refer to the explanation in your edit summary. Moving forward, if you follow the rule of thumb of basing your edits on best evidence available, and then communicating clearly with other editors, you should be good to go. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 23:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: reversion of edit to "Islam and clothing"

Hi RStech1: As I put quite clearly in the comment to my change ("Removed entirely. After removing unsupported assertions, there was not enough content left to justify a separate section to the existing section on France, below"), I was removing the subsection because it was unsupported by the sources it gave. You say you reverted my edit because I did not give sources, but I feel like perhaps you might not have actually looked at what the change + rationale was, because that doesn't make sense given the nature of the change. If you feel that the content removed *was* in fact supported by the sources given, then that's a different issue.78.144.89.47 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @78.144.89.47:,

Wow, that was almost two weeks ago. I had to look that one up because I did not remember the edit. :) (Just a note, I changed my username from RSTech1 to this one in the period of time in between.) After reviewing the edit, I can see that I reverted it because you were removing previously accepted sourced material, with only an explanation, but without citing a source to contradict the existing material. In your comment, you claimed that it wasn't supported by the sources, but you really need another reliable source to contradict the existing material if that's true. You may very well be correct, but it's important for others to be able to verify, especially if we don't have the same expertise on the subject. Please know my intentions were not to stifle your work. If you have any questions, before removing something, or need to explain in more detail, do so on the article talk page, and quote the material and the sources stating exactly what is or isn't supported. It's best if you discuss with other editors on the talk page. If everyone agrees, or you don't get any resistance to the proposed edit after a period of time, then go ahead with it. You can refer to your talk page explanation in the edit summary. This communicates clearly with other editors, and shows the legitimacy of the edit. You shouldn't have any trouble if you do that. You seem like someone who want to contribute to Wikipedia, so I would invite you to create an account. You get a few extra abilities, and you can still stay anonymous while getting to know some other people as well. For example, I will likely never remember an IP Address, but I will remember a handle, which brings some familiarity. People may see you working on areas you know best, and say, "Oh yeah, they're working on some articles within their expertise, good, good." If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to help. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 23:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi John,

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't understand what sources I should be providing apart from the originally cited articles. Someone had tagged on a subsection to an article which did not match the format of the rest of the article and which consisted almost entirely of assertions which were not in fact supported by the citations. There was a failure in the first instance to remove this unsupported content when it was added, which I rectified. The source is, as far as I can see, the original citations. I'm not sure what other citations might exist.

Thank you for your invitation to create an account, but I almost never edit; I happened to be looking at the article and the subsection seemed suspicious, so I followed it up.78.144.89.47 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved

Press TV

Regarding your revert, the source is simply incorrect by saying they didn't have a licence to broadcast in Europe, they must've misinterpreted something, bear in mind the source is not European anyway. There is no such thing as a "European licence". A station uplinked from Germany needs a German licence, from here in the UK, a British licence is needed (the UK is home to many international and foreign language broadcasters, in fact). 80.234.189.32 (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This might give a clue as to where the misinterpretation came from: [1] "The BLM based the decision on Ofcom's withdrawal of the British licence in January 2012. Hence, Press TV no longer holds any European licence", meaning a licence issued by a European country such as Britain. 80.234.189.32 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing something different. I never said it was incorrect, but your edit was not verifiable. Wikipedia information has to be verifiable. Please read my edit summary, and the note left on your page. You need to cite a reliable source. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 23:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved

Cybercrime article

hello, John "Hannibal" Smith my edit from Cybercrime article has been removed. I just updated the explaination over what is cyberwarfare which only stated fact. I would like to know why it has been removed, as i am new and learning it will help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie 09 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see my note in the edit summary, where I explained that it was removed for adding spam links. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's external links policy, and Wikipedia's anti-spam policy. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 05:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved

Please Correct Change to Warrant Officer Edit

Hello,

You had sent me a message saying you changed my edit to Warrant Officer, where it said after seniority "or distinguished in combat". You said this was not constructive. My Grandfather, Henry Morten Andersen was with the 7th Infantry from Oahu/Schofield barracks to Okinawa and then Korea. He was made a Warrant Officer through his role in combat (not seniority, as he was 20 at the time, as the comment I edited states). I believe this information to be of general benefit to the collective knowledge of Wikipedia & its readers, and have to respectfully protest your decision. I politely ask you to reconsider your change, and if you still disagree I ask you please explain your reasoning.

Thanks & Sincerely, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligula17 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Caligula17:: Your edit was both incorrect as a general statement and did not cite a reliable source. When making edits to Wikipedia, personal experience does not qualify as a reliable source as information must be verifiable by any third party. Currently U.S. warrant officers are subject matter experts in their field, and are not given the position by being "distinguished in combat" as you claimed. If you want to add a section containing verifiable information on how things were different previously in history or different for specific countries, and you have reliable sources to cite, then by all means do so. Before making any more edits, please familiarize yourself with some of the basics of editing on Wikipedia. I've posted a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 21:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved

Vandalism of the troll 141.226.218.75 (talk · contribs)

Hi, you asked me to contact you on your talk page in case of vandalism. The famous troll from Hebrew wikipedia is strikes again. See 141.226.218.75 (talk · contribs). I would appreciate yor help. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Hanay:,

Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it. Keep me posted. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 03:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you John, But as I know User:יעל י -> Yael Weiler Israel, her vandalism will continue, that what she does. I suggest to do range blocking, that what they did on Commons see here. Thanks again. Hanay (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved

Sansevieria trifasciata

Why are you censoring information??? There's HARDLY ANY about this plant, it's a tiny page, and the information I'm adding is 1) correct, 2) important, and 3) has nothing to do with personal opinions. So please explain your act of CENSORSHIP.

This plant has a very unique use as a bedroom plant - it's one of the few plants that produce oxygen at night. It uses the Crassulacean_acid_metabolism process, which I also mentioned -- WHY did you remove that??? It's mentioned at the main Sansevieria page so you better go there and censor it there too.

WHY do you feel it's important that people are kept unaware that this plant produces oxygen at night??? READ THE NASA STUDY, THE INFORMATION IS IN THERE for crying out loud. I WIKILINKED TO THE NASA STUDY, WHICH HAS REFERENCES!!! Why pollute pages with double refs?

NASA Clean Air Study <-- here I just linked it again for you. But no I CANT READ IT FOR YOU, you'll need to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE READ the NASA study yourself: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930072988

And consider that people VOLUNTEER THEIR OWN TIME to contribute to Wikipedia, we DONT NEED MAVERICKS LIKE YOU CENSORING WITH THE CLICK OF A MOUSE JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO LAZY/IGNORANT TO READ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review the 3 rules above. You need to be civil, and not attack other editors. You are incorrect. No one is censoring you. Your edit was reverted because you failed to cite a reliable source. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 11:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How is NASA not a reliable source??? Anyway i posted the NASA link even though it's already on the NASA Clean Air Study page, because life's not too short to waste with ridiculous things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

First off, you need to relax. In general you should not use other Wikipedia pages as sources. You had cited zero reliable sources in the edits I reverted. You need to spend some time working through the links I posted to your page. Learn the basics of how Wikipedia works and how to edit. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 11:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Why can't you answer the question??? HOW is a NASA.gov link to a NASA-run study not a credible source???

Instead youve just SEND ME THREATS. Well Mr Tough Censorship Troll you don't need to threaten me.

If you think people want to volunteer their time and knowledge only for people like you to click their mouse and POWERTRIP OVER THEIR CENSORSHIP ABILITIES then you're wrong. I remember powertrippers like you from Internet Relay Chat in the late 80s/early 90s. Anyway I'll let you get back to powertripping and censoring Wikipedia - "the free encyclopedia", because as long as it makes you feel all mighty then it doesn't matter that people are deprived of the factual information that Wikipedia WAS ESTABLISHED FOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

In the edits I reverted, you had not cited any NASA references. You added those after. I've never sent you "threats". I've reminded you that you need to follow the rules. Again, you need to review Wikipedia's policy on being civil, and not attacking other editors. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 11:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Redflag  Resolved

NPOV COI

So, I wrote up the article about SeaHash, and it was later tagged with NPOV and notability by you. I partially understand the notability, which might not be sufficient, but I genuienly fail to see how it is not objective.

I first heard about SeaHash after seeing it on Hackernews and Reddit. I do "know" the author, but I've only spoken to him once.

Hash functions are something that interests me a lot (as you can see on my edit history), and I have no interest in promoting this one in particular. In fact, I think SipHash or MurmurHash is better for most purposes.

So, my question is: What in the article in non-objective, and how can I fix it?

--Lekkio (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to remove the NPOV tag after rolling back the section on statistical guarantees, which I assume is the one which wasn't NPOV? --Lekkio (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lekkio:. It was a COI tag, not NPOV, although NPOV comes with the territory. Please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Be aware that until you have gained some experience and can do it properly, you should not be removing maintenance tags from articles (especially ones you have created). I placed the COI tag back on the article, as it is 100% appropriate. You asked me to review your edit history...No offense but your account is just over 2 days old, and you've made very few edits, so there is not much to review. Also, the article subject does not meet the notability requirements, as there is barely any information available online, and no reliable sources. It could be the most amazing hash algorithm in the world, but it doesn't have the track record to be notable...yet. That takes some time, and according to your posts, and sparse available info, it is a recent creation. I work with hashes and cryptography all the time, and new algorithms are always fascinating. However, they have to be tried and tested, as unverified information (in this field especially) can lead to disastrous consequences, for both security and application functionality.

This should have been written as a draft (as should your PCG article), and been reviewed by other editors first instead of posted as a new article. Please see the information and links I posted on your talk page for more information. I'm going to ask that you temporarily halt creating new articles until you become a bit more familiar with how Wikipedia works. When new users create new articles improperly, it takes a lot of work for other editors to clean up. I do not want to discourage you, but it is important to do this right, so take some time and learn the ropes first. We are all trying to build a high-quality encyclopedia here. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi {{ping|John "Hannibal" Smith}.

I see. I'm new at this, so sorry. I'm not sure how I can prove it, but I don't have any close connections with the author of neither PCG nor SeaHash, but I agree that it is probably not notable enough for an article. -Lekkio (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved