Hello Jiwhit01! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Chavatshimshon 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Macroshock, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article only serves to document an inconsistency in the application of a term in related literature. WP:NEO.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Myocardial bridge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Eructatonia syndrome, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wtc park july 12.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MedCenter Two Artistic.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Neuronetrix Wave Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Neighborhood Louisville KY has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jiwhit01. 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[reply]

Hello, Jiwhit01. 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[reply]

Hello, Jiwhit01. 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[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Operation Dark Huntor. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what happened to my revision. I published (a draft) but was still working on it, I spent quite a bit of time adding in sources and a great deal more information which is all missing now. Is there a way to get that version back?! I don't see it in the version history. If you moved it while I was working on it, is there a place where the version went that I saved? eximo (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jiwhit01,

Thank you for creating Operation Dark Huntor.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hey Jiwhit01! I've Identified your creating article are 42.9 percentage of possible WP:COPYVIO Infringement, please remove copyright content from the article, otherwise the article are to be eligible for Speedy deletion as G12; I hope you fixing the issue as soon as possible.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Aviram7)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aviram,

Not sure what you are talking about as far as "non-free sources" the 2 primary sources cited are 2 US federal government press releases, which are both free and available for public use. I'm working on obtaining other sources for an other wise "top secret" and "sensitive materials' government operation, so primary sources are going to be scarce.

I'm going to remove the tag, if you have an explanation for the tag, feel free to write me back and please add to the talk page of the main page so other people can benefit from this discussion. eximo (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a Move page for Operation Blacklist -> Operation Blackwrist. A trial transcript had the word mis-transcribed.

However, Operation Dark Huntor was created de-novo. There is a section I copied and pasted between two government operations that had identical information, but I'm not sure how any of what was copied would have created an issue, I don't think there was any active texts. Can you identify the section that I created an issue so I can inspect it? eximo (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reviewing my edits, I did copy the page deficiencies in the TALK page from Operation Blackwrist into the TALK page of Operation Dark Huntor, however, I don't see any issues since they both have the same deficiencies. Is that what you were referring to? eximo (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nationwide Investigation Advisory Committee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asilvering:,

This "secret" committee doesn't have a landing page anywhere on the internet. There isn't a news organization that has tackled it yet, and there isn't a watch dog organization that has taken it to task or under-observation. The only knowledge of it's existence are in court documents. This single committee is responsible for ALL boiler plate affidavits across the United States by the FBI or the HSI to get search warrants of peoples homes and other property. This article rates as High or probably TOP [important] on the importance scale for Wiki articles in the Wikiproject law enforcement and wiki project law.

If you are going to turn down my draft, I would appreciate you not just use a boilerplate to discount it, as to the 4 qualities believed to be deficient. I request that you discuss it's deficiencies on the talk page as to the four subjects:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

for reliability and at least low quality depth I think that a federal prosecutor describing the committee and how it works in a court document sufficient.

as for the sources being primary or secondary, that is always an issue that receives a lower bar for any information related to government operations where the government has routinely attempted to keep the information secret. This committee, it's members, and their specific responsibilities, powers, etc. are all at this time not disclosed, FOIAable nor able to obtained by inspection or observation.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider, or in the alternative, provide a detailed explanation of why you declined to allow the page's creation as well as what you further expect to be done before the page can be created.eximo (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jiwhit01! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Brazilian Federal Police operations, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Virtual Global Taskforce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundeskriminalamt. 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) 05:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Operation Torpedo. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DiannaaI very much appreciate that you are taking the time to care, to message me, and to help improve wikipedia. Your message is really non specific and not enough for me to ascertain what content you are suggesting nor what deficiency there is in citing it. I have worked diligently to provide reference sources to each and every fact stated. As you can tell, in the past week I've nearly remade the entire article from whole cloth, in addition to Operation Lobos 1. If you have suggestions, I'm very much open to them so that the article can achieve and enjoy a lofty standing. eximo (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I did is I noticed that the citation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ned.62281/gov.uscourts.ned.62281.50.0.pdf is in the public domain, so I added a template ((source-attribution)) as part of the citation so that the reader is made aware that the prose was copied from there, and not written by a Wikipedian. I added a reference notation after each segment of the article that was copied from that source. Check my edit. — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, particularly where it says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. You cannot use those sources that you've added. Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, you should remove every name on that page that does not have a secondary reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SchazjmdSchazjmd, I'm not sure that the WP:BLPPRIMARY is indicating that you can't use court documents as a primary source for things the court system has done to a person, or issued, such as a judgement or arrest or other event. There is a vast amount of information that is generated in court documents which are unacceptable to use as a primary source about a person, but that is different that describing the judiciary procedures. An court record about the arrest of a person is certainly adequate to create a reference to the arrest of the person for example, as is a judgement, appeal, release, and statistics about the case. These aren't really facts about the person, as much as they are facts about the operation and the prosecution that followed.

see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 29 for discussion on the topic

Therefore, I firmly disagree with your interpretation of the WP:BLPPRIMARY, but do think that the WP:BLPPRIMARY needs to be updated for clarity for such situations as this. eximo (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've opened a discussion at BLPN to see what the consensus is on this interpretation (link). Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schazjmd

The rules that are broadly applied to keep from doxing an individual beyond what is necessary when precedential law has occurred is to not publish personal identifiable information. Things like, street address, birthdate, social security number, names of other family members, friends or witnesses, email addresses, business name or address, bank records etc. An example is the famous Roe v. Wade, in which the name of the woman that is named in the suit is known, however, it would not have been prudent to publish other identifiable information that could aid those that would have harassed her. These are rules that are in line with both the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure which governs the Judiciary, and the privacy act which governs the executive branch and much of the private sector. eximo (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I merely notified you about the area of contentious topics. All we're concerned with are the policies and guidelines for wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found, on the page that you cited the WP:BLPPRIMARY the sections addressing privacy protection. Please see

• WP:BLPPRIVACY
• WP:DOB

Both of which mirror most existing federal and judicial privacy related laws/rules in the U.S. and likely other developed democracies. eximo (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]