Welcome to Wikipedia, WikiHannibal! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((helpme)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you deleted bare URLs from Blythe article. There were just two of them, both of high informative value. Could you please let me know, which policy is broken by use of bare URLs? Thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiHannibal. Thank you for participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaibigan. Another user has requested that you provide a reason for supporting deletion. Edge3 (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you're one of the regular editors of List of media adaptations of Journey to the West, I'd like to inform you that some of your edits have been challenged by a certain IP user 151.224.190.67. I reverted his/her edits because they involve the removal of a large amount of information and your comment from a talk page without your permission (based on what I see). Please see here for details. Thank you. LDS _{contact me} 13:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• journalist [[Daniel Pearl]].((citation needed)) In addition, the Samueli Holocaust Memorial Library], funded by [[Henry Samueli]], is located on the fourth floor of the University's Leatherby

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wu Cheng'en and Journey to the West (2010), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• /ref> from 1983 until 2002 he was Director of the Austrian Institute for Historical Research (''Institut für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung''.<ref>http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.w/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''American Headache Society]''' (AHS) is a [[professional]] society of [[health care provider]]s dedicated to the study and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Apperian was changed in July to a pure promotion. I reverted to the version before that edit, and will take a look to see if we can rescue it. Still has some puffy language in it, but there was some coverage cited in the older revisions. Need to see if it still hits the notability bar, which might take a while. Thanks for finding it. W Nowicki (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Wikihannibal~

Thanks so much for your editing on the wiki page of Milan Zeleny I created. I have already seen your editing.

I created this page to introduce American economist of Czech origin, currently a Professor of Management Systems at Fordham University.

I have two questions for you. First is about the External links at the end of this page. Yes there are two personal website links. The reason I put the two links on my page is because I want the readers of my page to get more ways to know this economist including viewing his personal blog or somethings like that. I can't directly use the contents in his personal blog. However, if you think it is not proper or it goes against the objective opinion rules, I can remove them.

Second~ I am not quite sure about how to add and edit the publishing activities (publications) for the economist? This economist has a really great amount of publications and maybe you can find the list of his publications on line through Google scholar.

But here I Redefine it. I mean I rearrange those publications in term of different disciplines, or say "academic focus" mentioned at the beginning of this wiki page.Instead of by the chronology that you can find on line.

Is it possible for me to put all of the selected publications on the wikipage? Those arranged publications are correspond to this economist's academic focus (different topics), which I suppose makes my introduction more complete. But does it looks so long?

Could you give more advises or example on editing this economist's publishing activities?

Many thanks~

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)) Hi, WikiHannibal~ Thanks so much for taking care the Milan Zeleny Page I created. Especially for your editing on the external links that I originally put on that page.[reply]

I got you~ The links in the body of that article should only be directed Wikipedia existing articles, otherwise, we should use it as reference instead of external links.

I have already finished the reviewing of the part Academic Focus and Academic Career, replace the external links with note and put them under reference. I will keep improving that page. You editing are welcome~ (Zhuyuxiang (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to the support of Georgetown University, [[Embassy of the Czech Republic in Washington, D.C.]]], Vaclav Havel Library and American Friends of Czech Republic. It was dedicated by former U.S.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Professor of Management Science at European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM)], Brussels, Belgium, (1980-1981).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ((cleanup|section|reason=mess; solutions: 1) divide acc to genre (game/film...), sort by alphabet or release, remove trivial stuff, add
• cite video|title = [[Encounters of the Spooky Kind]], [[Bey Logan]] audio commentary DVD featurette)|medium = DVD|publisher = [[Hong Kong Legends]], UK|date = 1980 (film), 2001 (DVD)))</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks for editing on Wiki Page Milan Zeleny
	Thanks for editing on Wiki Page Milan Zeleny. I will follow up your recommendations and spend some time to find the right citations. Zhuyuxiang (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vega (disambiguation) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal,

I have seen your work on Wikipedia and your copy-editing skills are spot on and very accurate. I would like to ask you if you could make edits to the page of Expedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedia), as there is some information missing from the page. Would you be willing to make edits to the page so that it's complete? The main areas that I think needs more information are the infobox on the top right, and external links.

To be specific, I think the infobox at top right needs more information, and fields more in line with other global travel brands like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago or and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodafone_Hutchison_Australia. The infobox also needs to change URLs to be within 'website' (at the bottom) rather than 'Web address' (at the top), and it needs to include links to Expedia ccTLD: US, CA, UK, AU & NZ (in that order) in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago In regards to external Links, I think it should link to Expedia ccTLD in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor with the same links as on #3.

Let me know, I would highly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Erexkiss (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately i cannot make the edits you ask for. I think the article needs other changes first - it has a long history but in its current state it is a candidate for a speedy deletion. Some referenced info about awards was lost from the article, along perhaps other things, and it would be useful to reintroduce those sources. --WikiHannibal (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Travel), Venere, Expedia Local Expert, Classic Vacations, Expedia CruiseShipCenters and eLong] Expedia, Inc.’s companies operate more than 100 branded points of sale in more than 60 countries.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vikingdom - You must have something more useful to do with your time - this isn't it. This is not vandalism, no matter how stretched the wiki definition is interpreted - it is legitimate connection to relevant related information.

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.91.234 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain it to you many times, have a look at other film-related pages; this is not how references and external links work. Also if you want to continue this discussion, please do it at the Vikingdom talk page, where I will also respond, so that future editors can see and assess our points. Thank you WikiHannibal (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wu Cheng'en and Journey to the West (2010), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just giving you a head's up: You shouldn't use merchant sources like Amazon to source something on Wikipedia. Given that they sell the book in question, using them as a source is highly discouraged because it's seen as an indirect endorsement of the site and so on. Also, Goodreads is also not considered to be usable as a RS either because the content can be somewhat easily edited. You have to be a librarian to edit, but it's not exceedingly hard to become one. For the most part though, we don't really need to source the existence of a book so I've just removed them from the Will Christopher Baer article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that the references are far from perfect; I have not found a better one. However, I believe publishing dates should be sourced as well as the facts about Phineas Poe. (Prior to my edits it looked like a stand-alone book.) It would be nice I you found suitable refs. Otherwise I think those I used are better than nothing. Thanks WikiHannibal (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1993, two language versions, Czech and Slovak, aired in the respective parts of [[Czechoslovakia]]). It has been regularly broadcast for over 40 years. A similar concept is called [[Sandmännchen]]
• php?subaction=showcomments&id=1141199043&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& |title=>> 40 LET HISTORIE |publisher=Vecernicek.Com |date= |accessdate=2013-07-31))</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wu Cheng'en and Journey to the West (2010), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when you remove an external link from the body of an article as you did with this edit please have the courtesy to include the removed link(s) in the "external links" section of the article. It has been done. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I consider that advertising. There are more marinas (as it is clear from the article), and they are listed at http://cruising-cape-breton.info/marinas.html (external link). There is also the See also link. So no need to pick one marina an external link. --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to a more speculative version appears to you as constructive? Basic difference between those two is that in the old one, which I'm promoting, is emphasized very speculative nature of Radegast as a deity. New version is full of pseudo mystical fables. Could we agree on, that the possibility that Adam of Bremen made a mistake is very high? Chupito (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at the Talk:Radegast (god) page so that other editors can contribute. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of authorities in wikipedia and whether you have some kind of rank and have more priveleges. I have no urge to enforce my opinion, I just feel sorry that on the english wiki is a mix of nonsences and fairytales instead of historical references. I have no time for long disputation and english is not my mother language, therefore I will give up, if you insist on your "point of view". Chupito (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in the source, but that doesn't make it a fact. The article suggests that it is. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would agree with you completely. But in LOTR and especially Hobbit, page numbers are next to useless because they vary so much from edition to edition, often by as much as several hundred -- even in editions that don't number FR, TT, and RK continuously as one book. In my four editions alone, the relevant passage in this case is on pp 102, 124, 810, and 828 -- take your pick. Most people don't have access any more to the hard-cover Houghton Mifflin editions referenced by ((ME-ref)). The chapter name and the entry in the index of your own edition is a better guide to where the material in question can be found. (Unfortunately The Hobbit typically has no index, and the variation from edition to edition can be even wider. The chapter name there is essential and about the only good guide.) -- Elphion (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A sources section makes little sense (in any article) for works of an author that have been through many editions, since different editors will use different editions: a sources section would convey that any page numbers given come from that selection of the editions, which is probably false. (This, e.g., is why ((ME-ref)) makes no sense to me.) In the case of Silm, UT, and HOME, however, the pagination has remained fixed across editions, so the specific edition used is not important -- so again a sources section picking out specific editions contributes little. -- Elphion (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHanbibal, I undid your revert on Liberland because your edit summary, which is only partly readable, seems completely off. Please stay civil, and use the talk page of the article to discuss its content. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please correct one of the sentences you edited in Tycho Brahe: "1990' investigations have suggested that Tycho did not die from urinary problems but instead from mercury poisoning." The more important problem is that the numeral 1990 followed by an apostrophe doesn't mean anything in this context. The less important problem is that it is not customary to begin a sentence with a numberal. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wu Cheng'en and Journey to the West (2010), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the articles about Ester Claesson and Lo Kauppi. If you find time for it :) Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For being a simple and quiet editor who works in updating articles wherever possible. Good work especially with taking care of Northern white rhinoceros. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours seems mostly good. But on the grammatical point, no, in standard English the verb agrees in number with the subject, not with the predicative complement. Therefore (links aside): A third area that he explored was Communist Party rituals (plural predicative complement, but singular subject and verb inflected for singular). -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, thanks. --WikiHannibal (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the A Song of Ice and Fire page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared your error on Incedo had already been explained to you by the time you made the AfD nom, so I felt the need to point out the strange "for some reason" blurb in your nom. If you still don't understand the mistake, then you lack the competence to nominate articles for speedy deletion. No big deal, as there are lots of other things to do and from your editing history it appears new page patrolling isn't one of your major activities anyways. VQuakr (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Željeznica (Bosnia and Herzegovina)|Željeznica]], [[Miljacka]], [[Fojnica]], [[Lašva]], Gostović], [[Krivaja (Bosna)|Krivaja]], [[Usora River|Usora]], and [[Spreča]] rivers.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WP:BITEy to revert all the work of a new editor who seems to have made a substantial improvement to the article, on the basis of one unsourced statement. Would you consider reverting your revert, and asking the editor to source "Chicago"? It looks likely to be the sort of case where an editor juggling half a dozen largely overlapping biographical sources can choose the wrong one to attribute a particular element - or do you think there is a much larger problem of inaccuracy in that article? Aside from the Chicago point, the article looked much better in this version than in this one which preserves the "It is a key figure" mistake which has been in the article for many versions, as well as lacking the lists of publications etc.

The newby editor is confused by the treatment of their work and has blamed Yobot for deleting it (I can't see why) - see User_talk:Magioladitis#Page_deleted_by_Yobot (which is where I came across it). Please consider helping him/her by replacing their content and tagging just the particular element(s) over which you have doubts. PamD 17:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Googling "monika zgustova chicago" found several references to her studying in Chicago eg http://bohemiannationalhall.com/index/viewevt/lang/en/ev/652/page/0, and I think it's quite likely to be in one or more of the sources cited in the article. PamD 17:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I restored his sourced content. His whole first sentence (parents, moving, Chicago) did not match info in the article and the "most acclaimed" was unsourced but I could have let him know. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's gracious of you. I hope the newby editor hasn't been frightened away but will stay around and enjoy their editing. Happy Editing! PamD 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, I'm new at wikipedia and I can make some mistakes. I have read your comments about the article and I see you have already done some changes. I'll read carefully all your suggestions and see if I can do anything else to improve the text. Thanks for your help PamD and WikiHannibal. Aleexeey (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/may/19/egyptair-plane-cairo-paris-live-updates?page=with:block-573d4156e4b094bc5b17a5e0#block-573d4156e4b094bc5b17a5e0

Please don't cite it twice. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See your ralk page and please check your edits. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are references to different posts in the live feed. You'll notice the URLs are different. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hannibal,

I'm the guy who attempted to update Mr. Jedlička's page. I understand your corrections and have to apologize for my rookie mistakes. My intention was really to add information in a transparent manner, but yes, it seems I've been inaccurate on sourcing. I'll be updating the page once more trying to reach a consensus with you on the quality of information and Wiki's editing standards. I kindly ask you to have a little patience for me. Halodalo (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I welcome constructive edits. I tagged some of the things that need to be fixed. Plus when you add unsourced info into a paragraph, it is better to place a break/free line between the previsously sourced content and the added content. This way it looks like all the Background info comes from the CV, which is not the case. (From my point of view, the Background section is unnecessarily detailed, as wiki is not a CV, but that is a minor issue.) You might perhaps be interested also in WP:SELFPUB and WP:COI. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. --John (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Hi, I did not change the article from one version of English to another. The text I changed was within quotation marks, indicating a direct quote from the source. In that case ((MOS:PMC)) , i.e. using the exact wording of the source, is more important than retaining the version of English used in the article, or not? What is your opinion on this? MOS:PMC deals with spelling this way: "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." and "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization". Thanks for clarification. NB: The source now uses your spelling so the original wording has changed since I copied it, or I may have copied it wrong. In any case, your version is correct but not because of the principle you put to use. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we are all sorted now. It looked like you were changing the spelling away from the way it was in the source and away from the standard established in the article. --John (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a topic in which you were involved being discussed at WP:ANI. The topic is concern over Adam9007's removal of speedy deletion templates. You are welcome to join the discussion here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiHannibal. 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]

Hello, WikiHannibal. You have new messages at Lds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sara Baume, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santa Fe and Kate O’Brien. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is tricky, isn't it? Clearly by birth she is an British citizen, but that doesn't mean she isn't also an Irish citizen. Being raised and educated in Ireland and living there now would seem to make her "more" Irish than, say, Kate Thompson, who is categorized as both British and Irish. The Guardian called her an Irish writer in this article, and in the article she seems to be regarding herself as one ('Baume, 31, said today that she was “very grateful to be on the longlist” but had “very low hopes of winning, because the previous two years it’s been won by Irish writers”'). Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion, so I'll leave it with you. ---- Robina Fox (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added Irish+source to the article, and we shall see. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your reverts on Liberland have re-introduced various issues with self-published sources that are discussed on the article's talkpage. Be aware that four reverts, made in quick succession and without consensus, can be seen as editwarring. The best way to go forward is for you to join the ongoing discussion. For now, I have tagged the article to indicate some of the problems. This could be a fine article, but currently it's not. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was under the impression that 'obvious' content didn't require citation? And to those familiar with history, it's quite clear what sources supplied their counterparts (I left out plot-spoiler or more ambiguous cases). If it is an issue, I can obtain references, I just thought it was unnecessary for such instances since I don't believe anyone objects with those antecedents. Sb101FV (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what seems quite clear to you may seem WP:OR to others. So please, obtain references. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sb101FV (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are just words in Egyptian pronunciation. You don't have to misuse the citation rule for that. Dialects have there articles and you may read further to know how words are pronounced, besides the previous pronunciations were provided by me, but I made them simpler. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiHannibal. 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]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bir Tawil. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please discuss your concerns on the talk page, and do not re-add the material until you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately other editors solved the issue instead. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the site linked mentions a proposal, but it also references its use in an actual scholastic publication (listed as "Heller, E. 1913. The white rhinoceros. Smith. Misc. Coll. 61 (1): 1-56"), and if you were to google "Nile rhinoceros" you'd see that it has also seen use on other websites. If a common name arises from a place other than Wikipedia and proliferates, what reason is there not to list it as a common name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Beall (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for writing me, perhaps with a more precise wording and more sources it can be used in the section Northern white rhinoceros#Taxonomy as I mentioned in my edit summary. But the source just proposes an English equivalent of Ceratotherium cottoni, which is not officially recognized as a species (i.e. not the subspecies Ceratotherium simum cottoni), so Nile Rhino can hardly be in the lead where Ceratotherium cottoni is not. Stating that Ceratotherium simum cottoni is the Nile rhinoceros is simply wrong and not what your source says. BTW If you want to continue this discussion, it would be better to use the article talk page so that the posterity can read it as well. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and I don't think any further discussion is required. I didn't pick up on the distinction of Nile rhinoceros being used exclusively for Ceratotherium cottoni and not C. s. cottoni, and it's an important distinction to make. Thanks for bringing this up. Luke Beall (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Kingdom Come: Deliverance, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Karl.i.biased (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for adding the weekly updates on the Ocean Infinity search efforts. I have added a section to the article talk page asking how this should evolve. Maybe it could be summarised, especially as the search will probably go on for many more weeks. John a s (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHannibal: I appreciate advice. But wouldn't it have made more sense to contact me rather than immediately reverting? The workers' state as farmers is (hopefully) common knowledge now; obviously some skilled architects were also employed but I could have removed 'skilled' and added sources. 'Verner pages 75–82?' is no help – which Miroslav Verner publication? It certainly doesn't appear to be the Wikipedia page, so I'm lost. Muinn (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muinn: Hi, sorry if my explanation in the edit summary was too short. Perhaps you are not familiar with this type of referencing - the format used is Template:Harvp. So, to be more explanatory: you added a phrase "– usually conscripted farmers unable to work on their own lands whilst the Nile was in flood" into what seems to be a coherent text sourced from Verner. The source is at the end of the paragraph; currently reference no 23. When you click on it, you are redirected to the bibliography section of the article, and more precisly to the very book the info is from: "Verner, Miroslav (2001). The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments. Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-1703-1." So your edit was wrong in 2 respects: 1) you added info that, for the reader, looked like sourced from the book by Verner. Which is not the case. 2) You added info which you consider common knowledge, but without a source such edit may in fact be considered original reserach. (BTW the section you edited has (as indicated) a corresponding main article, Egyptian pyramid construction techniques, and even that article does not mention farmers. So if you have anything to add to the workforce used, it would be better to start by editing that article.) For more info on references you might want to have a look at WP:VER, and WP:OR, for example. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yesterday I revised fatality count of incident from 65 to 66 and you changed my edit back to 65. Final death toll is 66. Sources;Aviation Safety Network,Aircraft Crash record office,and Planecrash.info all state 66 fatalities. Thank you and have a good day and I hope you change this.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked the sources you mentioned and while Planecrash says 65, 66 seems now more probable. Thanks. See Talk:Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704#Final death count for more info. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In your latest edit [1] you invoked named reference InfinityWeek1 which is undefined. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an edit with no explanation. Would you be so kind as to explain why. Ashattock (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I suppose you mean removing your edit from 20 December 2016, which I removed the same day, more than a year ago. As I clearly stated in the edit summary, your added content was "unreferenced" - you did not add a source of your information. Also such addition is not a "minor edit" as your edit summary indicates. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Regarding the two random IP's that were editing Anastasia Kvitko, I noticed the odd edit-war and decided to do a little background work. It seems that the primary source that was used to get her height disagrees with the secondary sources that I added. I sided with the secondary sources and correctly entered the Meters-to-feet conversion. Do you agree with the change? Jcmcc (Talk) 18:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just did not want to have "sourced" info replaced with unsourced. The original source (and this one, which is similar so I guess one is derived from the other, had 1.65. In this field, it is hard to find trustworthy sources, so... WikiHannibal (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding these. Are you able to open the reports OK, I am seeing errors accessing http://www.mh370.gov.my/index.php/en/ or when opening the links you added, hopefully just a temporary fault.John a s (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Map with GEOMAR calculations of wing flaperon (MH370) origin deleted from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 June 2018.

I saw you were interested in Bir Tawil article once. The point is a Beyond My Ken removed all the mentions of the 'Kingdom of North Sudan' in the article. And now he tries to moderate Bir Tawil's talk page. He removed my edition and then accused me of 'edit war'. Is there any way to stop this madness??

PS Almost the same situation/scheme in 'Hala'ib Triangle'.

Titus Atomicus (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are 2 separate problems: 1) talk page 2) Kingdom of North Sudan+Bir Tawil. Ad 1) Your commentary on the talk page, even though very interesting, does not belong to the talk page, really. Per WP:NOTAFORUM, as Beyond My Ken tried to indicate. And he was not alone, Bonadea also reverted it. I think there is no point in trying to add the comment again. Ad 2) Bir Tawil - the consensus from 19 January was to redirect Kingdom of North Sudan to List of micronations#Kingdom of North Sudan, which was done by User:CactusWriter. It meant that someone searching for Kingdom of North Sudan will find some info about it at wikipedia, through the redirect, which I considered sufficient so I did not oppose further edits which reduced info about Kingdom of North Sudan in the Bir Tawil article, leaving it just in the references. However, there is another problem you might not know about - the List of micronations, where Kingdom of North Sudan redirects, no longer contains info about the "kingdom". It was removed 11 May. I added it again but was reverted, and offered a solution on the talk page; I hope some of the editors who manage List of micronations will comment. For the time being, I think you can ask CactusWriter what he thinks about it because his solution from January is now void. Perhaps he can think of something. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiHannibal. I agree with your thorough explanation to Titus Atomicus. I do not have List of Micronations on my watchlist, so I'm glad that you linked me here. I have reverted User:Septrillion's edit and left a message on their talk page essentially reiterating your point: that WTAF is just an essay and it's about redlinks. It cannot be used for blanket removal of sourced text -- especially when added by previous consensus. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Map with GEOMAR calculations of wing flaperon (MH370) origin deleted from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi! I have been asked by DRN to post the template (DRN-notice) about the dispute between us:

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding the point of the dispute is to find a solution about the very strange situation: editor has deleted the map which existed in the article for more than 2 years, just because somebody tell something about that map and editor thinks that this map is "outdated" but cannot prove it with any reliable/verifiable source.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Map_of_MH370_flight_path_with_GEOMAR_calculations_of_wing_flaperon_origin discussion".The discussion is about the topic Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --KOT-TOK (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: "nothing in there concerning the content of the previous sentence" Please be careful when removing references which are obviously and directly on topic of the article. Quite often careless editors squeeze extra text in front of a reference, rendering it off-topic at the first glance. I fixed the case properly. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Hi, thanks for letting me know. But I do not understand why you reverted my removal of the reference. Now it seems that the part of the sentence: "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was released on May 19, 2015" is backed by this ref, http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/04/march-cover-reveal-witcher-3-wild-hunt.aspx , which is, of course, from 2013 and does not contain, as far as I could see, anything about that date. Please check it again, and tell me what was the problem, I may be mistaken. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, you are right. I was viewing wrong link. Reverting. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. Regarding your question in your reversion of my edit to "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370":

Sorry, I think these shloud be en dashes separeted by space, as shown in MOS:DASH - "To separate parts of an item in a list". But perhaps I am missing another "rule"? We can also use a colon (or comma, if the specific relation permits it) instead.)

It's a tossup between unspaced em and spaced en dashes, as per MOS:DASH—it just depends upon which gets used first in the article. In this particular article, the usage is mixed, so I opted for my preference (em dashes). I prefer colons for date lists and definitions, in part to avoid this particular conflict, but I feel links are more ambiguous and so opt for dashes.

Anyway, whatever we work out, there are a few more changes I made in that edit that are less ambiguous:

• "Press releases / Media" is at least partially incorrect per MOS:SECTIONCAPS. I was previously unaware of the spacing per MOS:SLASH, and disagree with it, but I'll concede it if you insist. (While spacing en dashes in date and time ranges makes sense to me for readability, spacing slashes in compounds does not—the spaces seem extraneous.)
• "between 2–4 November 2016" is incorrect per MOS:ENTO (thus my previous deletion of "between").
• Per its own instructions and MOS:SECTIONORDER, the ((Authority control)) template needs to be re-placed at the bottom of the stack of navboxes.

Lastly, this is why I generally try to avoid reversion except in clear cases of vandalism or wholesale mistakes—reversion is a very blunt instrument and there is often (as in my edits) a lot more going on than a single type of change. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, concerning the three changes you mentioned above, I am OK with all of them. As for unspaced em and spaced en dashes, I think it is generally not just about "which gets used first in the article". That applies only with regard to punctuation in a sentence (parenthetical phrases, as described in MOS:DASH, "Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes)"), not for ranges, compounds, and most importantly for our case, lists, as exemplified in MOS:DASH ("The Future" – 7:21). The application of this example to the external links section is just my interpretation but I think it is generally accepted (as opposed to unspaced em dashes), see for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Further reading ;-) The way I see it, the function of the dash in a list is to separate, not connect, and that is made more clear with spaced en dashes. Regarding reverts, I use them more freely than you; when there is a lot of changes, that are/that I believe to be incorrect, it is usually less confusing to revert all of them, and then sort it out in a discussion than trying to guess the reasons of the other editor for each separate change, and made more changes to the article based on that assumption. I hope you do not feel offended by my revert. Cheers, WikiHannibal (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please read the WP:BRD policy. Start a discussion on the talk page and reach a consensus there first before pushing those edits again. Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo the nice templates but please see Talk:Jamal Khashoggi, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have performed as many as 5 reverts in less than one day, which is more than 3RR. So, I would take the Openlydialectic's warning seriously. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I an glad that you can see it, but please get familiar with WP:3RR, especially exemption no. 7., and perhaps Talk:Jamal Khashoggi. As for my revert of your edits I reverted (again) because it was unsourced. I ask you (again) to get familiar with the template to make it work, if you are unable to check your edit with the "show preview" function. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a question: After more than four years of editing, more than 20,000 edits and multiple GAs, how much is it probable that the user can't use a template? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jamal Khashoggi, did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sexyeamo(talk) 22:35, 23 October 2018 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo (talk • contribs)

Not sure which edit you mean (you have not changed any of my edits, as far as I know), please see your talk page. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2018 (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 recently shown interest in 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 any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

--DBigXrayᗙ 01:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		Good job on identifying and removing violations of Wikipedia's policy of biographies of living persons! You deserve this barnstar for your fine decisions in editing. Keep up the good work in upholding Wikipedia's policies! Wikiemirati (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiHannibal. 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]

An article you recently created, Arms of alliance, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, I wished you had elaborated more on that template. Since you have used it this way, do you think there was some info that was not sourced? (I belive all was sourced.) Or that the same info needed more sources other than britannica? Perhpas it did but I wonder if such basic info really does. Or the topic is not notable? The article exists in 9 other language versions, and the commons category has some 500 files. I created the article so that the English version exists and can be linked to the others. But I guess you probably just did not like that it was too short. I cannot help with that, sorry. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: I was just coming here to comment: can't remember why this talk page is on my watch list but I was surprised to see an article by an experienced editor draftified so I looked, decided Britannica was a good enough source, an undraftified it. Then found the commons category for "Arms of Alliance" and linked to this stub from the category description. I'm not a fan of draftification: a "refimprove" tag to ask for more sources might be appropriate, but Britannica is a good enough source for the article to stay in mainspace. PamD 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth also noting that it's linked from7 other articles in English wikipedia. PamD 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, you did have a valid source and it should not have been draftified (I use that for fully unsourced articles, or where the existing sources are unsuitable and deleted, and then it is draftified - of which there are a surprising amount, unfortunately). I think the source given, as a tag, when clicked on to verify doesn't go anywhere (e.g. "Heraldry 1911"), but there is an attribution tag below which I may have missed. I see that PamD has beaten me to it in restoring, however, I added another ref for the article in return. sorry again! Britishfinance (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your response (and to PamD for restoring) and improving the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On that page, the headline was literally "Boeing 737 max major design flaws, not a software failure" Thatphatguy (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added to 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings: "It was later revealed that the crash was not caused by a design flaw." and I wanted a source for that. The headline you quoted can hardly serve as a source for that. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can you help me understand what you mean by constructive comment? For GOT, I added a fact to the criticism of the show, which is a fact, by a scholarly journal / source. It is a constructive fact that is neutral and constructs that the show is not blindly critically positive, but it has several issues in representations.

Thank you ,

Hi, your addition has been reverte five times by at lest 3 different editors; you were asked to discuss it on the talk page but instead added it again. ("Talk page" usually means the talk page of the article in question.) Similar edits of yours have (sometimes) been also reverted in other articles. The reasons added to the description summaries of your edits were, among pothers, "undue weight", "this is extremely minor and doesn't really belong in the main critical response section;... a bit overkill to include this as "criticism"", and "Entire section lacks sourcing and is highly subjective." I also asked "has been criticised by whom?", meaning one author critizing is not enough. See for example WP:UNDUE. Your April edits follow a pattern of adding "criticism" sections to a number of articles; after reverts, you defend them by saying it is a "scholarly source". So you can find more details/explanation in the edit summaries in other articles you edited. See also WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTHERE.

Also when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Article name, please be sure to sign your posts. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you, WikiHannibal (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my friend. I'm the writer of the section which you deleted. I saw your comment but I think this subject is too important and notable itself. So I think as Wikipedia rules, we can to open a new section in main article about Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and pay in many paragraph about this subject. Please won't delete again the section and instead of deleteing help me to expand the section my friend.Thank you so much.Forest90 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I think the topic is covered in the article sufficiently; another editor also reverted your repeated addition. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal, just fyi, the edit you reinstated here: [2] was actually made by an obvious sockpuppet of a blocked user (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino). They've been edit-warring this same edit for the past couple of weeks: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I've been reverting them for block evasion, as has admin Favonian, who has been blocking the IPs, but new ones keep popping up... You're entitled to reinstate the edit if you want to, but I thought you might not be aware of the situation, and maybe you'd like to consider the value of having that particular change, vs. the harm to Wikipedia by allowing this user to succeed in their edit-warring despite being blocked (see WP:BMB). Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - turns out Branson is a Knight Bachelor, not actually an LVO, so I guess it's moot... --IamNotU (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, it seems the user was blocked after my edit so I did not know that. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have undone my entry regarding a Ukrainian TV Series asking to add a source confirming it is a parody/satire based on GOT. This may be a perfectly warranted request for someone unfamiliar with the show but a bit hard to fulfill: the show has gone unnoticed in the Anglophone press or even blogosphere but for those who speak Russian the puns are too obvious to even comment upon: Petro Poroshenko as King Parasheon, Arseni Yatseniuk as Lord Yatsnow, Vitali Klichko as Lord Superstark, etc. The very name of the show too plays on the loose harmony of the words prestolov (of thrones) and nepristoinych (of the indecent ones), where two syllables sound alike. Also, if one looks at any given screenshot from the series (more than half of the episodes are available on Youtube), the doubts as to the genre of the show or its source of inspirations disappear. Would a link to a Youtube clip suffice as a source?

Hi, you can use non-English sources for claims such as "parody show" "were meant to pan" and please keep in mind WP:OR. I am not sure wheter the youtube videos can be used for anything more than just to support the claim it was based on GOT. Also I prefer discussing on the talk apge of the article as other editors can join easily. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiHannibal! Thank you for your clarification. Sorry for my not using the article talk page, my mistake.

Appreciate your efforts on the page. Sorry for the edit overlap and I am nervous about fixing the structure you put in place without knowing how. Akrasia25 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, you may want to have a look if the refs are numbered correctly now, corresponding to the numbered list you wrote and commented upon. If not, you can change the numbers in your list or, alternatively, the order/placing of the references in the list/column which starts <ref name="Trouw"/>, <ref name="India"/> etc. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Undid revision 912670517 by Mitchellhobbs (talk) I checked the ref you added but is seems there is no info about the content of the sentence it was supposed to support. What exactly you wanted to use the ref for?)

this ~ "White rhinos can live to be up to 40–50 years old." ~ by the way nice to meet you. ~mitch~ (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I missed that sentence, plus I did not explain it properly in the summary: the better source tag belongs to all sentences starting after the previous ref because, as it seems, the source used contains much/all of that info but there are "slight" differences (e.g. "Longevity: they live up to 50 years" vs "White rhinos can live to be up to 40–50 years old") between the source and the article. As for your source, it does not seem very reliable to me as far as the age goes. Might be even copied from wiki. And anyway, it is not a source to the whole stretch of text before. So I would rather not include that. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHannibal, No problem, I'll work a little on the article ~ also I'll see what I can do to clear the tag(s), with some Wikipedia RS's. How do feel about me archiving some of the cites? Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC) `[reply]

Hi, sure, pleae go ahead; I usually just try to prevent adding unsourced content. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for you comment. I added my edit in the article body. Although you might see this development not significant, I, and may be other, see it is as an important statement. Regards Jaseromer (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a "citation needed" template is the usual way of indicating something needs a reference, rather than just removing the text you don't like. Please also see WP:NPA - I don't appreciate accusations of vandalism. I certainly don't get everything right 100% of the time, but I have never vandalised Wikipedia. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Midgley (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly adding unsourced infromation to a Good article, after being asked for sources, simply does not improve Wikipedia in any way. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything but inserted additional information about the aircraft. Yes the aircraft first flew on 30 July 2018, what is the problem adding that additional sentence?! ^[1] 2001:8F8:172D:65EA:E48E:56AA:54E3:DE13 (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you inserted new information without adding a source of that information. Moreover, you inserted it in a sentence, which had its own sources, so after your edit it looked as if what you added was written in the sources already cited at the end of that sentence. Which was not a case. Is that clear? You should have added a source, as you did after my revert - thanks for that. See WP:VER, WP:RS for more details. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our bumbling Swiss friend removed the closing </ref> tag. The shouting I was referring to is here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please comment to the topic on the article talk page. Thee is a section about Germans. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks CaradhrasAiguo for calling me a bumbler ... not very nice ...--Swissmade11 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 is currently being vandalised, by IP 92.29.184.218. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamumar.thegeek (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your edit on 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic by territory and region article that Iran death toll has been rised by 75. (about 26 minutes ago). But the Iranian authorities just announced it about 2 minutes ago. How did you know the Iranian death toll rising before its announcement? Aminabzz (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you mean the article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory? As you can see in the history of the article, I have not mad any such edit. Please explain. Best provide a diff of my edit (by comparing the revisions in the article history showing my edit, and copying the link here). WikiHannibal (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have meant 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic Aminabzz (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my last edit of that article was 9 March, as you can see in th ehistory of the article, or here (amy take some time to load). Please have a look in the history of the article, find the edit you mentioned, and copy and paste here the exact time of the edit and the editor, to prevent any further misunderstanding. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You undid an edit fixing the double counting of recoveries in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Czech_Republic_medical_cases_chart , because the data isn't in the source. Do I correctly understand that you're suggesting removing recoveries completely from both wiki pages as the source doesn't give historic recoveries information? Because right now you changed the bar chart (note that bar charts are cumulative) to give directly false information (you changed it to say there were 3001 active cases + 25 recoveries yesterday, which is absolutely not true). David Mulder - GreatSlovakia (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David Mulder - GreatSlovakia, I said in my edit summary "Hi, sorry, I think this is not a viable bcs the resulting numbers are not present in the source, which will lead to confusion (readers, editors), showing different numbers than the table in the article. Plus deaths are also not active cases, and it seems your change does not reflect that. Better to change the legend of the chart to "total cases" or something like that." I have not suggested anything like what you are talking about. My main immediate concern were the numerical data shows in the template. The source shows cumulative cases, and we should do accordingly to prevent cofusion for the reader/editor who may believe they are outdated/wrong. It is the legend of the template that should change. (Ut is not very informative anyway, "# cases" does not says "active" or "cumulative". Also the fact that deaths are not active cases was not addressed in your edit (not in your response above), and in this respect, the numbers you presented were incorrect even according to your "method". Your point about the historical data on recoveries is valid, and archived pages should be used as a source in the table in the article, and in the template as well, if you wish. Further discussion should be at the talk page of the tempalte so that other editors can contribute easily. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal! Thank you for your attention around the poster I submitted. Since I didn't want to spam, I guess you may help me figure out what changes are needed to the poster and/or its distribution. I believe it can be useful as a CC-BY resource, maybe not in wikipedia pages though. Thank you, Cheater no1 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Cheater no1, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so first you would need to make your poster/activity notable enough outside of wikipedia. You should not use wikipedia to promote anything, regardless how beneficial it is, per WP:PROMOTION, or use it as a distribution channel for ideas etc. Unfortunately I cannot give you any meaningful advice. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:WikiHannibal. I clearly see your point. I will reconsider the distribution. Cheater no1 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "remove" your content, just supplemented it with links. Mubashirsyed014 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which edit you mean (please be more specific) but if it is this one, which I reverted, that is spam. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I daily watch Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza's videos. He is very supportive of some ideas of Israr ahmed. That's why i added his name. It's not disruptive editing bro. Mubashirsyed014 (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently adding unsourced content is disruptive editing. See WP:RS. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
It seems that you are trying to enforce your edits in the lead through editwarring and not consensus building. Here is your warning template. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have warned you. You are the editwarrior here. See WP:QUO and WP:BRD. You need to establish consensus first before reverting. I am going to give you a chance to self-revert yourself.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You placed it after 1 revert of your edit. Thanks anyway; it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. But please stop spamming my talk page. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I've known George for over forty years, and his speech was a major faux pas whose echoes will harm his reputation for decades to come, at least among writers and fans of color and their allies. The irony is that the mood of his speech was not reactionary (he's no Sad Puppy) but nostalgic and more than a bit cluelessly sentimental. The names, though, were just plain wrong and inexcusable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHannibal, you have already inserted yourself into the discussion on Talk:Cyberpunk 2077 and so editing the text in question on the main body is extremely inappropriate – even moreso now that I had already made an official Request for Comment. That RfC is the only reason I have not already reverted your edit, since I am waiting for others to get involved. And besides, like I've already said repeatedly, the BBC citation the entire sentence is using as a source is the very same source I am pulling from. Thus, my edit did not fail to "provide a reliable source" and your removal on those grounds is thus incorrect. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 18:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A rhinocero is a me who only slept 2 hours :))) WP has long become my addiction, I'll end up editing while sleepwalking. Thanks for not startling me. Arminden (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited the topic 'Banu Qurayza' with full evidence to an Islamic site written by an Islamic Scholar. I don't think there is any false statement which I have fired as the statement written on that Wikipedia page is from this source website itself. RPN1234 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed it according to the Islamic website with clear proof . Here is the website

https://www.islamiqate.com/1569/why-did-prophet-muhammed-kill-900-jews-of-banu-qurayza

Before I had edited , another user formerly wrote that Muhammad had killed the tribe (but the editor didn't write the reason behind the order of killing them )

This is my explanation and it is up to you to decide whether I have vandalized the page or not RPN1234 (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the source meets WP:RS (which it probably doesn't, it being an answer to a question at that site), you should have added it as reference to the unsourced claim. You added "There has been claims that Muhammad killed Banu Qurayza for not converting to Islam." without any source. Here you can see what you changed: diff. The page is sourced from a number of scholarly publications. You have been warned three times before about adding unsourced material, and the warnings include links concerning using sources. If you feel the need to discuss your edits, please do so at the article talk page so that other editors can contribute. Thank you, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope this is the right place to talk, I am a bit new to Wikipedia. I came here after recieving your message. I clearly did not intend to provide misinformation. I had mentioned a source of my information in multiple instances, for example when I talked about the possibility of a Phone being connected to a cell phone tower, i mentioned the source as the Ministry of Malaysia, and those were official sources. Wherever there were some speculations I used the word, "unconfirmed reports", and the mistakes made by ATC and government are official records, though I do not have any link for the same, the article i mentioned was just because it was having a easy to understand explanation. Please suggest what can be done to restore my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityamilyin (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your edit of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which I reverted, you added: " He is known to have political connections too. He was one of the most experienced pilot in Malaysian Airlines." and "he was likely to be certified pilot after this." without adding any source. (So, as you can see, I have nothing to do with your edit to the other article you seem to refer to - see cell phone, etc. in your message above) In any case, info you add must be followed by a reference, which usually is a link to a news article etc. You can find all info about references through Help:Introduction (that link is present in the Welcome message at your talk page. Specifically, you can start here: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1, and/or WP:CITE. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal, The text was translated from the German wiki article, so I was just following guidance of the tag. German wiki isn't so pedantic about inline references for non-contentious topics - it largely suffices to quote the sources in the bibliography. Anyway I'm glad you intervened so quickly; I won't bother now to translate the rest of the article. Perhaps you could remove the tag since it's clearly nonsense to recommend a course of action that is going to result someone wasting a lot of time and effort for nothing. Bermicourt (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well, shall I say? It seems you do not care much about inline citations even in articles you create, so it seems this is not about translation but editing principles, and any discussion would be futile. I believe that in the long run it is better to have less content that is precisely sourced than blog-like articles anyone can challenge in the future and cancel the effort of the editor(s). As for the removal of the tag, the tag also says "If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article." When the translator does that, it is not that much bothersome to add that checked source as an inline citation; so I hope some day someone will expand the article, including inline citations. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've misunderstood me. The articles I create are usually well sourced - otherwise I wouldn't have got so many through the DYK process. But creation and translation are separate skills. It's easy sourcing stuff you create; but trying to find sources for a translated article that don't come with it - well that's a whole different game and few people are going to do that which means, by your high standards, English Wikipedia will be missing a lot of perfectly good material. So I think you may be placing too high a bar on articles that Wikipedia itself doesn't insist on (although it prefers it) - otherwise millions of articles would get deleted. That's why the tag says "if possible". The stuff for which inline citations are critical are controversial subjects, big claims and biographical stuff. But as you say, let's agree to differ. It's not my loss as I can read the article at German Wiki; sadly, English readers will have to live the limitations of the one here. Bermicourt (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant articles where you add content like here with new literature but no inline refs to some of the additions (the most telling example would perhaps be the addition of "the terminology for the contracts - Brand, Bettel and Mord - may be derived from the old German game of Brandeln, which dates to the 17th century."). You write about something you understand but for future generations (I mean it), it will be original research. I am not saying I do not like the articles or that Wikipedia should do without them but in more mainstream articles, this would be tagged as citation needed or OR (esp. the "may be derived"). WikiHannibal (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a little disappointed by your revert because I used known medieval sources, which are basic about information of Radegast. Don't you consider Helmold of Bousau and Adam of Bremen to be the relevant sources? Adam of Bremen describes Radegast as a "prince" and not as a god, that is, that he would be a mythical prince of the Raderians. Of course I will add them there. About the spread of Radegast among the Polabian Slavs it is a well-known matter and about other places there are no sources. Dragovit (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not revert because you "used known medieval sources" but because you did not add citations the your additions. The article is unsourced to such an extent, it cannot bear more unsourced material. Also if you want to use medieval sources directly, it would be best to include the quote. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I own several books about the Slavic religion, but what I have written are mostly basics and that's why I didn't think sources were needed. For example, the article about Svarozich also talks about the identity with Radegast and there is also no source, it is because medieval sources describe both identically and there is no doubt about that. Of course, the information about the spread of his cult around the Elbe among the Polabian Slavs (and primarily the Redarians), I think, also didn't need sources, but I will add them as soon as I can. The information of the article is relatively outdated when Radegast is presents here as the god of hospitality of all West Slavs. Dragovit (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VER, especially the very first sentence, WP:RS, and WP:OR. It is irrelevant, how many books you own. Regarding your comment about Svarozich article, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you wish to discuss your edits further, please do so at the article's talk page, so that future editors can benefit from the discussion. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiHannibal,

If you may know me, I was the one who you told about the Minor edits when I was new. So, I contacted you because I came on an article without a talk page. I am not much experienced with templates so I contacted you so you could help it. Here is the link. Thanks, Contributers2020 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you click on the (red) Talk page of that article, you can start editing the Talk page, thus creating it. It says at the talk page: "To start a page called Talk:James Lawson, Lord Lawson, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it." Happy to help, WikiHannibal (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Zara Rutherford, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 Vrbětice ammunition warehouses explosions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BIS. 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, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal, thank you for restoring my edit on the Radogost (mythology) page. I thought I would let you know that User:Sławobóg has been engaged in an edit war with me on that page, and they likely will persist in their large-scale edits without providing satisfactory explanation, all the while calling my reverts vandalism. It may be worthwhile to keep an eye on this activity. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't split Sinking of the Moskva. I just reverted an edit that would have led to the main article and the sinking article being redundant in scope, without prejudice against a bold merge back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the split was made earlier by another user, sorry about that; I just saw that after your edit, the article was left ina sorry state. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal, thanks for checking up on my edit - I thought I had gone through all the sources (and swapped some out) properly but will revisit them all since you noticed that mistake. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reinstated you edit reverted on the Attack on Snake Island article. Seems one User with many past blocks continue to disrupt the edits being made.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.User200, please stop canvassing other accounts to aid you in your edit wars and disruptive editing. Volunteer Marek 06:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about the China Eastern Airlines crash, did any of the provided sources on this crash so far give us the information on the spread pattern of the wreckage. If so, it'll be easier to determine if the aircraft broke in mid-air or was mostly intact when it impacted the ground.ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WikiHannibal, I've seen that you've had some dealings with F1V8V10V6. I had a lot of trouble with this users behaviour in the past as well, so I've had their talk page on my watchlist and saw their recent block. I thought they had generally cleaned up their act after being told off by administrators numerous times, but had my suspicions that they were making strange edits on the IP that you posted on their talk page as well. Now, on top of it, this other account SpeedOfLite (talk · contribs) blanks their user talk right after F1V8 was blocked. If you look at the brief edit history, it has a lot of similarities to a point of almost if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Same interest in Formula One (particularly Max Verstappen), the World War 3 videogame, and extinct species. As well as the aforementioned tendency to blank their talk page upon being criticized. I am thinking of an SPI, because problematic editing is one thing, socking is another, but thought I'd point it out to you first and see what you think about it. Cheers. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that there are a lot of similarities. Not sure if enough for SPI, though. I do not really see "a misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts" in this case and I do not know how hard it would be to provide evidence for SPI. I do not have much exp. with SPI, though. Personally, I would wait what happens during or after the block expires. Cheers, WikiHannibal (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a legitimate alternate account, it has not been disclosed as such which would be an issue, espescially being active on the same articles. Checkuser could probably confirm it easily, either way it's shady. You're right though, waiting a bit to see what plays out never hurts. TylerBurden (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the user is a kid who does not know much, if anything, about these policies but perhaps is able to learn. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you decided to revert my reliably sourced edits citing that what the words I added was not present in the sources I provided? The ABC News reports concur and even mentions the Wall Street Journal's report about the recent statements from the U.S. officials in the investigation. I would like you to respond to my message this time please since the previous time I tried to contact you, you completely ignored my message. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I prefer discussing at the talk page of the article so that other editors can contribute if needed. Before my first revert, I checked info you added, and it is not in the audio or text of the ABC source. Please go through the source again more carefully, and you will see that the text you created is a misinterpretation. If you think it is not, please quote from the source. I am sorry but I cannot prove to you what does not exist, i.e to show you where in the article your info is, when it is NOT there. BTW not sure what you mean by saying you contacted me and I ignored you. When was that? WikiHannibal (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHannibal Please examine the sources again buddy because the video source I used at 1:25 mark mentions that the investigators had looked into the personal life of the pilot and noted how "the younger pilot may have been struggling with undisclosed issues before the crash". The ABC news article also states "The near-vertical descent of the plane, they believe, would've required intentional force." ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I contacted you last week on your talk page May 10 politely asking you if any sources detailed the pattern of the wreckage, which would indicate if the plane broke apart in mid-air. But I will start a discussion on the article's talk page as well so every editor can participate. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 talk page but I repeat it here. You need to follow the sources more carefully. You quote "may have been", which is in the source, but you wrote "was most likely" in the article. Also "The near-vertical descent of the plane, they believe, would've required intentional force." is not the same as "deliberately put into a vertical dive by one of the pilots" as you added to the article (your WP:OR looks like it is certain it was the pilot). I hope you see the difference now. If not, please ask others at the article's talk page. As for your previous question above, I failed to recognize it was a question about how to improve the article, and considered it WP:NOTAFORUM, sorry for that. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have reverted your good faith edits at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power and am giving a full explanation why here as promised:

• For the addition of "The actress", we should either re-introduce her properly or not at all. Saying she is an actress but not giving her full name or wikilink would only be necessary if there was another Addai-Robinson that needed to be differentiated from. In general I am very much against re-introducing people in every section, if someone comes across a surname that they do not recognise then it is on them to go find the introduction to that person. Otherwise, we might as well give full, wikilinked names for all people in every instance.
• For Fimi's description, saying who she is rather than her current job title is much more useful to readers. I feel that the description we have is not controversial and is fine as is, but if you disagree then we could discuss adding additional sources to support the description rather than removing it altogether.
• "it this" appears to be a typo, not sure what you were trying to do there
• "drafts of The Silmarillion" seems like unnecessary clarification, the point isn't where he wrote it but that he wrote it

Happy to discuss these / any other improvements you think can be made. Note that I am kind of sensitive about this section in particular because of how controversial the topic is and how many problems we have been having with the article / talk page. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem, I will try to edit it again based on your suggestions. I just briefly comment on your objections here but I think it is better to discuss future changes at the article's talk page.

• 1) Actress - no problem. My point: in a Reception section, readers generaly expect opinions of critics etc. While Henry is put into context by "he and other people of color had been cast" and Weber can be identifed as producer anaphorically, Addai-Robinson is without context.
• 2) Fimi - the most important problem is the phrase "an authority on Tolkien's writings". It had probably come from the lead of Dimitra Fimi, using tolkiengateway as a ref, which I also removed. That descrption is unsourced and cannot stay in the article. BTW in my opinion, writing one monograph (+ the articles) does not make anybody "an authority on Tolkien's writings".
• 3) It was a typo, thanks My point: The sentence may give the impression that Fimi concurres with Sledge also on his comparing "the backlash to homophobic complaints", which is not the case, she does not mention McKellen.
• 4) Drafts of The Silmarillion - the clarification is needed bcs it was a draft, and of only one "book"; "in some writings" gives a wrong impression of several finished works. Also it is more encyclopedic to be specific, not vague, and in this case "in some writings" is not a summary but a weasel word. Cheers, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your reasoning here and am happy with your updated changes, thanks! - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kingdom of Enclava and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Precision Air Flight 494, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiHanibal! I noticed you reverted some of my edits to J.Eliasch's page. I apologize I made a mistake in deleting the sources with the sentences I was only supposed to move to a different paragraph. I was only intending to move the texts about Pitch@PalaceGlobal and Aman Resorts to the next paragraph (where he has other board positions listed), and replace some prepositions to improve the article? Can I redo my edits? I'll be more careful with the references. Thank you Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you complained on 27 Nov that "was a counteroffensive; no recent sources supporting the claim that it is ongoing; no source about that in the body of the article; feel free to change but back it up with sources"---Well, the counteroffensive is still ongoing, but the progress is slow due to multiple factors: Weather is one, because the raputitsa(mud season) is on; Plus there're fierce battles alongside Svatove-Kreminna highway, and Russian forces have several lines of defense and even mined the area, not mentioning after Russians withdrew from west bank of Kherson Oblast, some were transferred to Donbas area, therefore the situation is difficult, and not mentioning the info war between the two sides(one said "I've repelled numerous attacks from the enemy", and the other said, "Nah, I already advanced to such and such an area, how many kms away from such and such a town", therefore it's not better than previously discerning whether it was true Russia withdrew from Kherson city).

But on the other hand, I was not allowed to involve in the editing of this article after 7 Oct, and this article was turned into a protected one, therefore if you complain that the article is not updated and this and that, do not forget to see whether the article is open to everyone for update; If not, then either you've to lift the ban on me and others, or you've to update the article yourselves with all the sources you can back up. Bf0325 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see you have added sourced content to other articles regarding the counteroffensive, please inform editors about your sources at the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive talk page or make an edit request there. BTW if I had not checked your other edits, I would have dismissed your comment here on my talk page as original research bcs you did not write about any sources, which is the only thing I asked for. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now—thanks.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: let's adopt your suggestion and move the explanation completely into a new footnote.--AntientNestor (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with acknowledgement to you in the edit summary.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got something wrong regarding Arabic names in those two cases, [8], [9], since they are a scholarly transliteration according to the UN scheme of transliteration, easily reconstructable to the original Arabic text, even if you don't know Arabic.

A separate note on the G for ج used in transliterating Egypt-related topics, is also the preferred method by the Library of Congress, DIN, and the UN, so as the agreed upon method on Wikipedia. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all I want is a source (a RS would be the best) for the Arabic name and the transliteration bcs it has changed in the history of the article without attribution, for example: 1 2, including your edits 3 4. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Are you referring to my edits as unexplained changes?! They were a correction for an obvious mistranslieration and the other was a correction for an IPA notation I gave that someone else was joking by making it sound like the Arabic name for the Smurfs!

Here are numerous popular posts to pick on of them as you please!

1. BBC
2. Alhurra
3. CNN
4. Times of Israel
5. Euronews

Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!! In this edit you added Egyptian Arabic pronunciation: [ɡæˈziːɾɪt sˤɑˈnɑːfeɾ] which was later changed to Egyptian Arabic pronunciation: [ɡeˈziːɾet sˤɑnɑˈfiːɾ]. You also added Ğazīrat Ṣanāfir which you later changed to Ğazīrat Ṣanāfīr (ī instead of i), which is now Geziret Ṣanafir in the article. You seem content with these changes )even though they are different from what you added) bcs you removed the citation needed tag. So if all is "easily reconstructable" and "obvious", why these several versions? Regarding your sources abouve, I did not find IPA or transliteration there. Also, if you want to continue in this discussion, please copy it to the Sanafir article first, and contiue there so that other editors may benefit from it in the future. The only thing I want are RS. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you move it, even though the problem is with one particular user, you, not with some kind of controversial information that needs the community's input. I gave you more that what you asked for, many sources with the islands' names in Arabic text, because it seems you can't read Arabic and you can't understand what transliteration is to reconstruct the original Arabic text from the UN's geographical name scheme which revealed the Arabic text. Thanks again. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiHannibal, I’m unsure of why you gave 24.38.26.130 a Level 4 vandalism warning for this edit. The sandbox is intended for test edits and there wasn’t anything in that edit that fell under WP:BADSAND. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 17:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, thanks for letting me know, corrected. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are mistaken.

The article says:

“According to the Ukrainian data, highlighted by the UK, 824 Russian losses a day is more than four times the rate reported in June and July, when around 172 Russian soldiers died each day.”

The summary of these figures as being I posted was “The previous high was 172 Russian soldiers killed per day, during June and July” is in line with the article.

I am avoiding a direct quote and being true to the article. Referring to it as the previous is in line with the article’s contents. The only thing I might have changed in hindsight is the removal of the word high. The complete removal of the sentence indicates that you didn’t read the article. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also add the title of the article is “ Russian soldier death rate highest since first week of war”, thus this indicates that there was a previous high that has been exceeded according to Ukrainian data. That high was during the fighting in June and July. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please copy this to Talk:Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine so that other editors can contribute. I made myself clear in my edit summary. Ii is not true as you say that "The summary of these figures as being I posted was “The previous high was 172 Russian soldiers killed per day, during June and July” is in line with the article." Your hindsight "removal of the word high" is what this was about. June/July mnumber (172) was never "a high" and the article does not say that. It contrasts February + July/June just bcs of the huge difference. And contrasting two random months has little informative value; what si important is that the only time when losses were higher was during the fisrt week af the invasion. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me what you mean by arms of alliance are not a practice but a type of arms? What are these types of arms you're referring to? Giltsbeach (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Arms of alliance is a heraldic technical term for the way in which two coats of arms are displayed. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, could you please elaborate? I thought "arms of alliance" is a term that refers to an object in the first place, e.g. the picture used in the Arms of alliance article; arms of alliance are the result of a way/practice. Isn't that so? The sources also seem to support this interpretation. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay WikiHannibal, since you were very kind to me in your latest warning hence forth I shall limit my edits to Wikipedia. Focusing on quality over quantity. I do respect you as an editor and thank you for your service to an encyclopaedia that many people rely on. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:WikiHannibal are you sure you verified the fact posited by Folha de S.Paulo in Johan Eliasch before you reverted my edit? The citation template listed this Brazilian Broadsheet's language as Italian which raises an issue about the verification of facts in articles about living subjects. While I don't doubt this broadsheet is WP:RS, WP:BLPRS says, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

Look at it this way. The British tabloids published loads of stuff about Elaisch's business and personal links with the Nonce of York but we don't publish that on WP becuase we're not a gossip rag. If the mainstream press, i.e The Guardian or The Times published some verifiable stories about this guy then obviously, it's on. His controversies should be mentioned in the WP:LEDE because that's where the article's WP:DUE will have shifted to. But, we've got to get ontop of the WP:V first otherwise we're lowering our standards to the British tabloid's standards. Can we please take a closer look at this article's sourcing?Icicle City (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiHannibal. Thank you for your work on Yan Petrovsky. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening again.Expressive101 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding Siebmachers Wappenbuch, the caption was wrong. The old version of the armorial, "Alter Siebmacher", has the title: New Wappenbuch : Darinnen deß H. Röm. Reichs Teutscher Nation hoher Potentaten [...]. See: Google Books. Although the book has the word "new" (neu) in its title, it is the old version. /B****n (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed remove edit tha a large piece of wing turned up which might trigger an investigation - how was that irrelevant? Why would someone waste time updating the wiki and write an entire news article on it!?

This is not good moderation Kev Lambert (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]