User talk:Vanished user 95aac1187a60a2a91a531f7f540e9ceb0e5c354b

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Aviartm. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 15:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome Doug! We may have our tensions on a peculiar page, but that's just one thing. I really do enjoy Wikipedia and what is has offered and what it continues to give. I thank you for the links and trying to help a fellow Wikipedia! Thank you Doug! :) Aviartm (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Famous Dave's has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Famous Dave's was changed by Aviartm (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.966024 on 2015-06-06T01:02:01+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Widr (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a German group and we've got an article on it. Antifa USA is a movement, not an organisation or group, so can't have an official logo. Please revert, Doug Weller talk 05:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What matters are reliable sources, and you don't seem to have them. I repeat, there's no official logo because there's no organisation. Whether some people use flags, etc is irrelevant unless it becomes significantly reported in the media. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than keep on reverting eachother in Antifa (United States) I have made a section on Talk:Antifa (United States) where this can be discussed. I think we might be using the wrong infobox type so please don't feel obliged to fill in all the parameters when some of them clearly do not apply to something that is not a political party or even an organisation at all. We can discuss the specific parameters, and the wider issue of which type of infobox to use, if you like. I've already had my say. If you say why you think that the claim of an international affiliation is justified by the sources (and/or anything else you feel arises from this or the infobox more generally) then maybe we can see what some other people think and take it from there. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for your edit, please self revert and discuss this on the talk page, also bear in mind WP:3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Overlink. For instance, you are linking "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" such as "law" and "information". I'm not the only editor who has noticed this. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that although only three editors have reverted you, another has asked you to revert yourself. So that's 4 not happy with your edits and yet you singled me out to complain to and haven't yet thought to ask why people are disagreeing with you.

The sources I have read say that Antifaschistische Aktion - particularly its actions during the Weimar Republic, which I remind you was about 3 generations ago. It's an inspiration and perhaps an intellectual heritage for some, but probably not most although that is of course speculation. Still, it's a movement and movements tend to attract people who are more interested in the 'now' then what came before in another country.

Then there's the fact that Antifaschistische Aktion doesn't exist anymore and when it did it was part of the German Communist Party. Antifa movements today are not part of any Communist party.

Those are facts, but in a sense that's irrelevant. What matters is that we follow the policy at WP:VERIFY and can back any text with sources that meet WP:RS. You haven't even tried to do that, just argued that you are right. That's why you keep getting reverted.

I agree that they often use Black bloc tactics and wear black. But not just black. And logos vary, eg [https://twitter.com/berkeleyantifa this one. It's a movement so it is impossible for it to have anything official.

Which is why we rely on sources. And rarely just one source, usually we need multiple sources.

As for the infobox, there is very little that should go into it as this isn't an organisation. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have stated previously, you are in my notifications box the most, that is why I disregard others. Overwhelmingly, they wear Black. That is why their "colors" os Black. And yes, it is old history, but Antifaschistische Aktion is the European counterpart from the United States essentially? Yes?

No. It's an organisation not a movement. It has no formal relationship as that's impossible. But all of that is my observation from reading sources, and we need actual sources to make the links you make. WP:VERIFY isn't optional. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And really this discussion needs to be on the talk page, with your sources. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would Antifa call themselves "Antifa" them? Seems extraordinarily similar!

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chicken McNuggets. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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. You were already undone once. That does not mean that you restore it and mark it as minor. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to discuss this on the article's talk page before it can be restored. Meters (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MINOR. Your edits should not be marked as minor Meters (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

Doug Weller talk 17:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What page is this? Antifa? @Doug Aviartm (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specific page but the US antifa page would be covered. Trump certainly is and is under scrutiny so it's important new editors know about this. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But what this have to do with Trump now? Aviartm (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Junto (club).

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. That poorly written edit does not belong in the article, let alone in the lede. Restoring it as a minor edit after it had already been removed once is disruptive. Read WP:BRD and take it to the article talk page if you insist. Meters (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Benjamin Franklin. Stop restoring questionable, contested content as minor edits. Discuss it or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please try to avoid linking to disambiguation pages, like you did in this edit. It just adds work to other editor to disambiguate it. --Muhandes (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Muhandes. I made the edit on my iPhone, I would've done a better job, but linking pages to a particular one is quite limited on mobile unless I do not know some other method.

Since the overwhelming majority of the wikilinks you insert are contrary to WP:OVERLINK, it would be best not to do it - at all, let alone on a device that means they don't even point to the right place. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Pinkbeast, but if you look at all the various links that I did connect but were inverted, there are hundreds of people's wikipedia that have that generic linking, so I figured I would just continue to do that.

Well, figure otherwise. It's against policy, as you've been told _and_ it's actively damaging when you get it wrong, as you often do. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are so many pages linked to even very generic pages? The first sentence of any person usually has words linked. I am just doing that. Aviartm (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you find other pages that break WP:OVERLINK, the answer is fix them (or don't, please, since you tend to make a mess which other people then have to clean up), not to make other pages break that policy too. Why are they like that to begin with? Because of people like you who don't read policy even when it's clearly linked on their talk page and has been for days. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But if there are hundreds, if not thousands of common/popular Wikipedia pages that "break" the overlinking policy, then why are they not reverted? Aviartm (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter why, there are probably a multitude of reasons and Pinkbeast has already commented on your question. The important thing here is that you help the project by not doing it. Find something else to do. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. But what I was trying to address was that I was connecting links that other pages already have similar liked connected links. Aviartm (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know, you have addressed that ad nauseam. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aviartm. 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]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I did not see the talk page at the time. Understandable. Aviartm (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've not been checking Aviartm's edits in detail recently. While they have graduated from vandalism, they still love to mangle a page with a generic edit summary. I gather this was about their endemic Caps Disease? Pinkbeast (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast I did not read the talk pages at the time, that's why an edit of mine have been reverted. That is understandable, don't you agree? Aviartm (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aviartm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

Hello, Aviartm. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Special Counsel counter report is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Counsel counter report until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I'd like it if you stopped doing these. You rarely improve matters and often make them worse, because your grasp of punctuation is so poor.

However, since I know you won't do that, please at least refrain from, as here, putting quotation marks around something that is not actually a quote from anywhere. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least in regards to my most recent changes on that page, it was a small one. My apologies. Aviartm (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely typical. You take a sentence with correctly positioned commas and move one to the wrong place. Since you have no idea how to punctuate English, please refrain from changing punctuation.

This edit is another case where you've made a page worse by trying to "fix" it. Most of that whitespace did nothing; the rest was intended to indent entries in the tables. That isn't the way to do it, but the answer to that isn't to remove the information altogether. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Baim wiki, and I checked my edits to your edits side by side and one by one and I do not see what is the issue...? The comma existed then and now.

And in regards to the Economy of Guba, I found the spacing quite excessive in the tables and in the sentences. I just removed the majority of it. And that was odd. When I was editing it, there was spacing for the indentions I'm sure but I guess that was not so when I published. I suppose a schematics issue? (E:Aviartm (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The comma's in a different place. Specifically, it was in the right place, between "to" and "more"; then you moved it to be between "contributor" and "to". Of course this lack of attention to detail is completely typical of your editing - you indent talk page posts essentially at random, you fail to sign your edits, and in spite of the fact that your attention has been drawn specifically to it, you can't even check a diff closely enough to see what has changed.

The majority of the spacing didn't do anything at all. You didn't notice that, of course, because you never check anything. I have no idea what you mean by "a schematics issue"; the issue is that you removed it without thinking "why is it here?" or considering how to convey the information it was intended to convey. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Rookie mistake. And when it comes to indentions (:), says to do so if there is much text. But in this regard, hopefully not. And I knew what the indentions were trying to convey. But genuinely speaking, there were indentions in my edit screen prior to publishing. Aviartm (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What it actually says to do is to have one more : than what you are replying to; not a number selected at random. Why didn't you preview the edit to check the actual effect? (More to the point, please will you agree not to edit punctuation until you know how to punctuate English?) Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to add another ":" every time, I must say, I have been doing that. When I saw indentions in the tables, I presumed they would be published the way I saw them, but as I previously noted, that was not the case. I will try to be more alert in those regards.

No, you haven't. That is not even remotely true. In this discussion alone I have fixed your indentation more than once. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, probably but I was referring throughout time. Aviartm (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "through time" you have been getting it wrong, just like everything else that needs attention to detail. So, please don't try and do things that demand attention to detail. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm... I know that I have used ":" consistently before. Occasional mishaps. Aviartm (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not occasional. You do it constantly. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[maybe...] Aviartm (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your very first comment there is misindented. And, guess what, you made a mess of that link, because you never check your work. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but you get my point. Aviartm (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless your point was that even when you try to produce an example of you getting something right, it turns out to be an example of you getting it wrong, and that - entirely typically - you also make a mess of the link and don't notice because you don't check anything you do.

Perhaps you get my point; please don't try and do fine detail stuff when you are incapable of getting it right. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got the point. And I did notice that the link was not working and I am not sure why. That is one area in which I wish to improve. Aviartm (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviartm! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:03, Wednesday, December 12, 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Choi Sang-ok (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Korean

PM-43 and PM-68 mine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Finnish

Som Mittal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian

Sub Rosa (band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brazilian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Special Counsel counter report. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ETC Group (energy efficiency consultant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviartm! You created a thread called What is with the mass change of the Title of 'President' among current and former Presidents here in the US and abroad? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanished user 95aac1187a60a2a91a531f7f540e9ceb0e5c354b. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

The cited sources in Jeff Bezos do not say he is divorced, only that he has announced his intent. See WP:BLP for the requirement that facts about living people be accurate and well cited. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviartm! You created a thread called When will the PDF generator for WIkipedia Books be improved? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Hello, thank you for the notice? I checked my edits and such and that was not me? I edit through my account only. I am not sure how I *might've* edited out of my account? Can you clarify if possible? Thank you! Aviartm (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Margin of Safety (book), 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.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Bainbridge Crist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conductor

Kama-yari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horseman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 219.79.126.220 (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Don't close discussions you're involved in! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

O3000 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above template is only a reminder since it has been over 12 months since your last. Also not the Donald Trump articles is under Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. O3000 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Special Counsel counter report is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Counsel counter report (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, signatures are per-comment, not per-edit. If you write two comments in one edit, you need a signature on each of them. The need should be obvious if you look at your "euphemism at best" comment in this revision—there is no way for a person reading that to know who wrote it, or when. I've added the standard "unsigned" to that comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Just forgot. Happens to all of us time to time. Aviartm (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Since you did it at least twice in that thread, it seemed more likely you weren't aware. No offense intended. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, lol. After I first initially forgot to add the signatures, I added my signature with the following edit afterwards. Aviartm (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you have become involved in reverting vandalism recently. You may find it useful to enable Twinkle, a tool that assists with anti-vandalism and other related activities. This page explains how to enable it on your account (check the box on the gadgets section of your preferences page) and use it to revert vandalism.

It is also good practice to leave a warning on a user's talk page after reverting their edit which provides an explanation of why you reverted their edit. This page lists various warning templates that are available for this purpose. Twinkle also allows you to easily select and leave a warning template on a user's talk page.

Keep up the vandal fighting! Regards, EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 01:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EclipseDude Thanks! Will do! Aviartm (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EclipseDude Is there a way to not have the User's talk page come up when I just do a normal rollback? Aviartm (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can change that in the Twinkle preferences page under the "Revert and rollback" section. It does that by default so you can leave a warning template for the user you are reverting. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 01:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EclipseDude Thank you! It worked! :)

I'm still curious. What exactly WERE you expecting me to do to that vandal, considering I'm not an admin, I'd already reported him to AIV, and RPPs had already been made? Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreatluigi Not sure. I think at the time, I did not notice your message of "final warning" on the user's talk page until after the fact. I tried to report him too but stated there was already a report, which was by you. So... Aviartm (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I wish I could have blocked him myself instead of waiting for an admin. Also, to be honest, in a case like this, the "final warning" tag probably wasn't necessary anyway, since it was blatant block evasion. I only put it on to make absolutely certain. Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have too if I had the ability. I think the tag was warranted because he made like 50 vandal-motivated edits and reverted our good edits. Aviartm (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what I meant was, in really blatant cases like this, it's fine to report that sort of user to AIV with zero warnings. As someone on here once told me, "WP:AGF is not a suicide pact". Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Keep fighting against vandalism and thank you for your efforts! Aviartm (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's an ongoing discussion on that article page and you didn't provide a citation. That's vandalism. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, reverting your edit is not vandalism. Frankly, if you provide some citations that prove your edit, we might not revert your edit then. Issues like these should be taken to the Talk page of the Article., not on Userpages. Aviartm (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ideology section has no citation or reference. It should be removed since it has no reference supporting it. I already created a discussion on that articles talk about the matter and you ignored it. I'll just be reporting this.

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

No because hundreds of states political parties wikis do not have citations by their ideology. Aviartm (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? If hundreds of states political parties wiki articles have uncited ideology sections then go ahead and start tagging them 'citation needed' or remove it. Just because the section is there doesn't mean it's cited, referenced, or deserves to be on Wikipedia. It could all just be a bunch of misinformation, have you considered that? 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a possibility that it is misinformation but so far you have not offered any compelling evidence as to why it is not Liberalism, Modern Liberalism, or Progressivism. And please follow Wikipedia:TPG if you are to continue talking here. You should bring these issues with the corresponding pages, not user talkpages. Aviartm (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started a talk section on that article back in February. You're the one that ignored it. So of course I brought the discussion here. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Meters mentioned, I have only made one edit on that page ever. And if you continue to not follow Wikipedia:TPG, I am going to ask you to abstain from messaging. Only discuss these page issues with the corresponding page. Thanks. Aviartm (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The IP has taken you to 3RR. I've already pointed out that this is clearly not edit warring since you have only made one edit to this article ever. Meters (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meters. I just left you a message there. Aviartm (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

\I strongly suggest that you do not restore that section again. Meters (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters Do you suggest to wait for consensus? Because I've seen other states' political party wikis and they do not have citations by their ideologies. Aviartm (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that when someone had opened an unjustified 3RR report on your, the worst possible thing you can do is to give them more ammunition. The IP is correct that the claim is not sourced.. It really does not matter if other political articles don't source those kinds of claims. I don't usually do American politics, but I'm inclined to think that the request for a source is reasonable. Wait and see what other editors say.. Meters (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You'll see I just sent you a message. Aviartm (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, since you were recently warned about discretionary sanctions on American politics post 1932, your second undo was a violation. I suggest that you undo yourself. Meters (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters I don't understand. Can you explain? Since, my edit got reverted or undone so the Ideologies section is no longer up to begin with, Aviartm (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another IP showed up and undid you. Too late for you to fix it yourself then. By the way, there's no need to ping me from my own talk page. Meters (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting too weird. There is now 3 IPs spewing out identical messages with the same words. This is not a coincidence. Look at this. Aviartm (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too late tonight or me. I don't even know what page I am on any more. I'll look at this tomorrow. I noticed the second IP and asked if it was the same user. I've given both IP's DS notices so everyone would be on a level playing field, but if the user is hopping IPs then it gets messy. Meters (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I sent you my findings and all that. I think the user is hopping IPs. No way in hell that 3 random IPs find each other and say the same thing. Please look at this tomorrow. Aviartm (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all ~~ JJBullet 20:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for this warning. No, the change was not an improvement, but it was obviously a good faith edit to restore to the previous version of the article that had been stable for two months. The editor who undid Aviartm simply pointed out that Pachelbel's Canon is better classified as chamber music than as a song.. Having a third party drop a level 3 warning is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. When I first saw this notice, I thought it was excessive and true, he is a third party uninvolved. Aviartm (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason we don't list the names of non-notable collegiate athletes, we don't list names of collegiate mascots either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep that in mind. Thanks. Aviartm (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Margin of Safety (book). Thanks! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear Thank you for reviewing my submission. I am not sure whether I can comment where you do so I am going to inquire here but can you clarify how the book fails to reach GNG for books? The author is a significant individual. The book does tailor off of books that have their own pages, etc. Thank you! Aviartm (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviartm: - so the author being notable is completely irrelevant (notability can't be inherited). Books don't usually operate off general notability, but book notability. The usual route there is coverage of the book - which usually means 2 or more in-depth reviews, which the article doesn't currently have. I raised a query as to whether books could become notable as a result of coverage in a non-literary sense (the sources are about them being pirated, not strictly about them as books). If there are some decent reviews I'd suggest adding them to avoid this could be/may be. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear So I need to include some reviews from Wikipedia:Reliable sources in the page and then it passes book notability? Aviartm (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviartm - so they'd need to cover it in a reasonable amount of depth (c.10+ lines), but yes - RS isn't an exclusive list by any means, but any that are on it would be fine on the reliability front. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear Alrighty, I will start doing that. Thank you! :) Aviartm (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear So I've been looking at book reviews and I have found some but I am not sure whether they are of quality. The book reviews do not come from a major source but more so of smaller websites, ran by one individual, or just lesser known websites in general, thus reliability per se cannot be gauged. I was looking at Wikipedia:BOOKCRIT, and the book does succeed at 1, 3, and likely 4. Thoughts? Btw, any word on coverage "in a non-literary sense"? --Aviartm (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviartm: - hi, you're welcome to demonstrate notability by an alternate route - it's usually either harder or unnecessary (i.e, it's usually only simple if there are lots of reviews) - I've never actually seen criterion 4 used, but it's always an option. The current in-article sources don't seem to support 3 - do you mean that the sources you've found elsewhere reach this level? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear Actually, reading 3 again, the book might not fulfill but "or other art form", what could this entail by chance? That is pretty broad to say the least. The book most definitely fulfills 1 and possibly 4 but I will have to look into 4. Aviartm (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviartm - I suspect it means things like TV series etc Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I will keep looking for more info so it passes Wikipedia:BOOKCRIT. I'll keep you posted. :) Aviartm (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have now on four occasions within 24 hours removed reliably sourced content and inserted your own obfuscating nonsense about what WikiLeaks did in relation to Seth Rich. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So expanding contexts and comments by Julian Assange and Wikileaks itself with RS is now violating RS? Since when did Fox become "unreliable"? If we are going to assume that Fox is bias, we too must assume that all other mainstream outlets are biased as well. Aviartm (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added a transcript to an interview and then a local Fox News station (literally the same FOX 5 DC station that later published a shoddy story promoting the conspiracy theory). Even the local Fox News station said Assange hinted that Rich was the source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an excuse to remove comments by Assange with RS. Every media outlet has reported on conspiracy theories. Does that mean all further reporting by said outlet is now "unreliable" and "fraudulent"? No. Aviartm (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant comments by Assange are already in there, as are RS descriptions of and context behind those comments. You have violated 3RR to remove those RS descriptions and context Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why am I having to add them? Because prior, those comments verbatim were not there; that is all I'm adding. Aviartm (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comments in full are not pertinent. The pertinent part of the comments (that Assange implied Rich was the leaker) was already in there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the issue. Distorts Wikipedia:NPOV. And adding a comment in its entirety said by Assange is best, which contests "that Assange implied Rich was the leaker", per the comment Assanage said that does not confirm or deny that Seth Rich was the source. Aviartm (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RS say otherwise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "citation needed" from things in the introduction - a summary - which have a reference in the body. No time to check if any, but usually, the introduction contains ONLY sourced information from below, and therefore doesn't need any citations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HelloGerda Arendt Well, there is no "citation needed" in the lead of the article but in the 'History' section. 'Biblical accounts', which is under 'History' has citations so I am not sure what you are requesting... Aviartm (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aviartm, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Edward John Eyre High School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain Alrighty, I wasn't too sure but I gave it a shot. Thank you for checking on it! :) Aviartm (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'd like to request that you make an official {{rfc}} based on the arguments for keeping the Seth Rich content in WikiLeaks neutral. It appears to me that this is the only way the change is going to be accepted. I only ask that you create it rather than I because you're well-versed on the relevant policies, whereas I'm a relatively new editor. Have a good day. 84percent (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 84percent I did plan on doing that. I'll send you the link if you'd like to review it once I'm completed. Aviartm (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please post two versions of the paragraph with the disputed sentences highlighted and all the sources included so that readers can easily distinguish what precisely is under dispute. See this as an example of how it can be formatted.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans How about now? Aviartm (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviartm! You created a thread called What are the procedures to undo a redirect of a page? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mueller Report, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you Ad Orientem! :) Aviartm (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop altering the introductory sentence on Mueller Report. Removing any reference to Mueller and his investigation in the opening sentence is bad writing, misses important context, and nonsensical. Don't make this change again without discussing it on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the proper talk page, Mueller is already mentioned in the lead. Contents should be first, who conducted the investigation afterwards. And it's not WP:EW. Aviartm (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No—the opening sentence is intended to describe what the report is. You are rewriting the introductory sentence as to be misleading; it is not "the official report on Russian interference," it is the official report on Mueller's findings. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It is the official report of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). There are Congressional investigations but that is not the special counsel. You are literally grabbing straws. Aviartm (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As of right now, you've authored 48% of the Mueller report. Simply wow! This is a recognition of your great efforts! starship.paint ~ KO 07:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ... although you should probably replace that Medium source! I think Medium (website) is a blog site! Ha! But that's just one reference out of so many, not dumping on you! starship.paint ~ KO 07:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! :) Yes, Medium is a blog site, lol. Aviartm (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviartm, you should create a section in Talk:Mueller Report to discuss how to change the Mueller report article since we have a spin-off on Barr Letter. I wanted to do it, but I feel that it would be good if you got your rationale in at the start. Thus I would defer starting that section to you. starship.paint ~ KO 07:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Margin of Safety (book). Thanks! Otr500 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Margin of Safety (book). Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margin of Safety (book), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911 Thank you! :) Aviartm (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Guerrilla marketing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint John's University

Thechikottukavu Ramachandran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tusker

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[2] is a violation of 1RR. You removed "; however, the report gave no indication that Trump's frustrations with the investigation would mitigate obstructing behavior." earlier today, and now you've changed the text again to substantially alter its meaning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans Please read my response at Barr's talk page. Aviartm (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been alerted of the 1RR violation and has acknowledged the violation but refuses to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviartm - are you sure you should have reverted so many edits in this [3]? There were certainly some good faith edits you took out... starship.paint (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint This is weird. I noticed that earlier. And I did not remove it though. I noticed when I did some editing in the lead that one of, or thee most recent addition to the lead was removed and I do not recall removing them whatsoever. So I don't know what to tell you. Looking at this, yes, they should be on the article. But I am not sure how to add it in efficiently. I can of course copy and paste and all but I think you know the better method. And I did not revert anything however. I was going through the history of the most recent updates looking at who added the new additions to the lead, which you did. But I did not do anything else. Sorry about this strange event. Aviartm (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I think happened is that you accidentally edited from an old version of the page. So you inadvertently restored the old version plus your new edit. starship.paint (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint That is possible but I did not see any warning that it was an older version of the page. Aviartm (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so with your permission, I'm going to undo your edit [4] as an accident, while restoring everyone's future edits. Is that okay? starship.paint (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint Looking at the edit that you linked that I made, it just gets more and more weird. Yeah, you can do most of it but I did add genuine content improvements so if you can and/or want to, keep those while fixing everything else. Thank you Starship. Just weird how this came to be. Aviartm (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe you stop editing for now. Until I restore a corrected version. starship.paint (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint Yeah. Had to get those done quickly. Was wondering possibly that I might be interrferring with what you were doing but I am done until you correct these errors. Aviartm (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Meanwhile you should check if there's anything in the 04:10, 31 May 2019 edit you did actually add that was helpful (and which I naturally, had to remove). starship.paint (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint Thank you again Starship for your spectacular work! :) The only edit that I did from what I remember is the following: "On March 24, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter detailing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions", and that this led to "public confusion".^[1]" If you would like to add it, go ahead. But if you want me to, that is fine as well. Aviartm (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it! Thanks for the barnstar, Aviartm :) Go ahead! and reply to me on the Talk:Mueller Report! starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint Alrighty! You're welcome! :) Aviartm (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:YESPOV, specifically Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. There are no reliable sources cited in the article which dispute the statement; ergo, policy clearly demands that we state the reliably-sourced assertion as a fact. If you have a reliable source which disputes the statement, then of course we should change the wording — but the onus is on you to present that source first before changing it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof That makes sense. However, I do not see how stating "The Washington Post stated..." neglects Wikipedia's voice? Aviartm (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

Even though pre-primary education had been introduced by the Government in 1940.The expansion at this level did not take place until the Fourth Plan between 1977 and 1981.

Even though enrollments more than doubled to 250,000 during the 4th Plan period, it was represented only about 9% of the age group.The role of the Government in pre-primary education is reflected in its increasing share of enrollments. In 1980 the public:private share of enrollments was 44:56 but by 1994 this had increased to 71:29.

There are about 400,000 Poor Thai children who are not in primary school in 1994 .

During this period also, the retention rates for students improved from 80% in 1987 to 85% in 1994.

The gross enrollment rate at the pre-primary level increased from 4% to 8% during the 1970s. In 1980sand1990s, the Government concerned about the rising gap in access to education between urban and rural areas. This led to greater public provision of pre-primary education which increased the enrollment rate from to 35% in 1989 to 78% in 1996(Education Reform 1995).

By 1985, children in urban areas were triple opportunities to attend pre-primary schools than those in rural areas. In 1992, the situation had improved but the enrollment rates for Metropolitan were still higher than those who located in the Northeast, 56% versus 38%.

His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol Minister of Education (1995-1997)came up with four major education reform strategies.

It was known that reform of education management is not in sufficient enough to bring the improvements to Education in Thailand.

Management reform must be part of a coordinated package of reforms whose overall objectives are to improve quality, access and relevance of education.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001221/122102Eo.pdf Page53-56

At the very beginning, the crucial element to be considered for education reform is the management system. The administrative power, in particular, has to be shifted to local authorities, and local participation in the school management is essentially encouraged. We cannot deny that people who know more about the educational needs of local people are those who work and live within that community.

However,radical management reforms cannot succeed in the Thai context of a deeply embedded tradition of public sector management which is highly bureaucratic in character.

The reform of management is an essential condition in national educational reform without which other reform effort could become a failure (The Commission on Thailand's Education in the Era of Globalization 1996).

Because of the centralized system of 1995 Thai educational administration and management structures .There were no involvement from the other sectors of society in decision-making. Education has been inefficient and often irrelevant to the real needs of individuals and communities (Office of the National Education Commission 1996).

The Minister of Education suggested the nationwide survey.Thai People agreed that it was time for Education Reform Out of 45,860 people surveyed 52.2 percent said they believed that time for educational reform while 33 per cent said the current system only needed some improvements (The Nation, 17 April 1996).

Between 1995-1997,Education is a topic of widespread concern in the community.Educational Reform are widely debated and many commentators in the media, the academic community, parliament, and various interest groups are critical of the present state of education.

Minister is faced with many powerful interest groups-students, teachers, parents, politicians, employers.

These groups were focused on several dimensions urban/rural, high/low income, ethnic, religious, etc.

There were impacts on many issues such as the location of educational institutions, financing of education and its cost burden, appropriate curricula, the distribution and quality of teachers and of physical facilities.

The truth was Education policy and planning have been under consideration for decades.

The major policy change in educational administration seems to be the decentration of responsibility and budgets.

What is the reason that you deleted the well documented information?

Please let me finish? 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has formatting requirements and policies that you are not fulfilling. Wikipedia is not a dump fo copying and pasting. Read more here: WP:FORMATTING. Aviartm (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information is history of Education Reform in my country.Education Reform had not been improved.I try to document the World Bank report 1998 for future generations.

Could you help correcting rather than deleteing ?

I will help. However, please educate yourself about the ropes of Wikipedia and formatting so if you do make a proper edit, it does not get reverted. Aviartm (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

I did not get to the part that World Bank Recommend and the minister did not get the chance to do it (His cabinet lost the voted).Thai Education Rank was 29th in 1997 and 64th in 2015 .

Where should I continue? Should I In your talkpage or the article ?2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my changes and once I am finished, I will let you know. In the mean time, please read WP:FORMATTING'. Aviartm (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I am finished. You will see things such as which? and citation needed. If you see those, please fulfill them. Citations are needed for some of your additions and some of the text needs clarification. Cheers and happy editing! Aviartm (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Sheesh, you're quick on the draw in all the best ways! OwnstheBeagles (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OwnstheBeagles Thank you! I try my best, either though you or another might beat me to the draw. I too will reciprocate! Aviartm (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when using tools, it is important to leave an explanatory edit summary if you are reverting an edit - especially one that is not manifest vandalism. Thank you. --2604:2000:E010:1100:5894:12BD:5CE8:5557 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]