User talk:Anasaitis

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ISIS

You added the capture of Fallujah in the infobox as an "important event". You obviously haven't read the article. It is not mentioned it. Readers will be confused if they cannot find anything about it in the article. Please either add information to the article or remove the reference from the infobox. Thanks. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just to tell you I have replied to your message on my Talk page, as I am not sure you will be notified since your username is red-linked. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed several edits that appear pro-ISIL and go against consensus on the ISIL article. Specifically, ISIL is not a State and is highly unlikely to ever achieve statehood. I realize you are new to Wikipedia, and am happy to answer any questions. Just remember the ISIL article is very high traffic and subject to community sanctions for edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? I am not sure there ever was a consensus on some of these points, was there? Were they not just edits that were made and not challenged, and then challenged quite heavily later on? It would be useful to know where these consensus discussions are, as I cannot remember them. Strictly speaking, "consensus" is formed after discussions among editors on what form a particular edit should take. There are lots of examples of them in the Talk pages, many now archived. On "pro-ISIL", I think you will find that the majority of editors who wish to keep the article neutral and comply with WP:NPOV tend to be thought of as pro-ISIL, when the attempt is not to whitewash ISIL, but to tell the facts as they are in as neutral way as possible. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message for you and Lor on Lor's Talk page here. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Lor^Chat 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note. You have appeared to have broken the One revert rule Currently active on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Lor^Chat 22:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anasaitis reported by User:Lor (Result: ). Thank you. Lor^Chat 22:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fallujah

We spoke about your edit on Fallujah earlier. I was looking at earlier versions of ISIS and noticed Fallujah was mentioned in the article in January this year here. As we said, the capture of Fallujah is not mentioned in the article now, but it is in the Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events article. I also found some reports of the event on Google here. Do you want to add back the information into the main article in the "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" part of the "History" section and the infobox? Please do keep contributing to the Talk page as there are some important discussions going on there at the moment. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm Legacypac. Your recent edit to the page Islamic State of Iraq appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This terrorist group is not, and was never, a country. Do not reintroduce the former country infobox again. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, you have been asked multiple times to stop deleting information like this from articles. You made the same arguement on ISIL's page, and you were asked to stop. The infoobox cites two sources within it. Those sources were investigated and selected by another user, and I have checked them out myself. They are reliable. What seems to be the problem here is that you are trying to make the articles reflect your own political views. Facts are not based on politics. We all hate ISIL, but we cannot just pretend they have no control over the territory which they have conquered. The articles must reflect the reality of the situation. ISIL isn't just some trigger happy group of terrorists. They are also a self-declared state that, while lacking recognition by any world government, maintains effective control over parts of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. We cannot just ignore that. Now, will you please stop deleting relevant material? It is quite annoying when I have to go behind you and re-add what you delete. If you want to discuss the issue, do so on my talk page, and please provide a legitimate reason for deletion of the infoobox. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are here to promote the idea that ISIL is a state your wikipedia editing ability will be ended pretty quickly. I provided a reason - they are not a state - this has been established all over Wikipedia by many editors. We clearly call them a rebel group controlling territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_who_control_territory and all pages need to reflect that status, not any kind of State, recognized, unrecognized, current or historical. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to promote anything. I am merely trying to point out that your edits are politically bias. You may think they aren't an unrecognized state, but the people editing ISIL's article disagree. I am not going to waste my time trying to argue with you. I'm here to make UNBIASED edits. Anasaitis (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hello, I'm PhantomTech. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Halstead Place, with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PhantomTech (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Someone incorrectly redirected the page to Halstead, England. Halstead Place was the name of an historic home in Ocean Springs, Mississippi that was tragically destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. I was going to add the information when I was finished with my research. Anasaitis (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Carolina in the American Civil War. 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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.
You've tried to add this infobox five times now and been reverted each time. You have never gone to the talk page to discuss it as is required per WP:BRD. The next step is reporting your disruptive editing to ANI. Red Harvest (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Novorossiya (confederation), you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? Excuse me? I have done no such thing. I don't know why people keep arguing that the two people's republics over in Ukraine haven't unified, but the people over there consider themselves one nation. I actually spoke with a few of them online, and they clearly stated that they consider themselves citizens of Novorossiya. Furthermore, look at how they have merged there armies, and how they have presented a unified front in the face of the Ukrainian army. All evidence clearly points to a single entity in the form of a provisional government. Now, before I go on, please do not interpret this as my being biased towards the rebels. I've adopted a neutral position when examining the conflict, which is necessary when conducting research. Nor is this opinion based upon just my personal observations. In fact, I didn't even propose the capital was Donetsk. I simply noticed that significant portions of infobox had been deleted, and felt that some of that deleted material was still relevant. I have concocted no misinformation, and I detest the very idea of vandalism. As such, I cannot help but take personal offense at this accusation. I am not some deceitful punk who vandalizes sites for fun! i suggest you look up what the capital of Novorossiya is to verify the fact. Every nation has a capital, even unrecognized ones, so the answer must be out there, and based on my own research, I have little doubt that it is Donetsk. I will look into the matter when I can, but it may take some time, as I am very busy. Nonetheless, you wound me with your accusation, and I see it as a personal insult. Anasaitis (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for hurting your feelings. Please read Talk:Novorossiya (confederation), including the archives. It is a conceptual state, and there are no reliable sources discussing it as a term still relevant to the Donetsk-Lugansk Republic's 'merger'. It's irrelevant whether you've been in contact with people online, or even whether you - personally - stated that you consider yourself to be a citizen of Novorossiya. That's known as original research which is simply not accepted for the purposes of Wikipedia. We draw on information through secondary sources and do not analyse, speculate, or make conjectures. Last year it was declared a failed project by one of the main figures who'd promoted the movement. Since then, there are no reliable sources discussing it as being applicable to the existing, unrecognised state/s.

My suggestion is that you read the talk pages of articles you wish to work on with great care before you try to edit them (most particularly contentious articles). I've added a welcome note to your page which will help you to familiarise yourself our policies and guidelines, and also suggest that you familiarise yourself with these. Finally, if I could offer you some advice, it's very, very difficult to start your experience as a new editor by jumping into the deep end by trying to tackle the most contentious articles. You are bound to come out of the experience bruised, battered and feeling very negative about the project. For the sake of giving yourself time to get through the learning curve, it really is best to start on articles that interest you, but need a bit of a tidy, etc. Whether you wish to follow my advice is, of course, entirely up to you, and I certainly can't force you to stay away from articles subject to sanctions (see WP:ARBEE). Wishing you all the best, and hoping that your enjoy being part of the Wikipedia project! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

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 Eastern Europe, 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 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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Republic of Crimea. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Louisiana secession shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Insulting edit summaries

The insulting edit summaries are not helping your arguments. You don't seem to appreciate what constitutes reliable sources or even what the nature of the dispute is. Please take a look at the discussion. If you can provide reliable sources that support "Republic of Louisiana" as an official name, then there would be a basis for inclusion and discussion. Red Harvest (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology on my talk page. Red Harvest (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Kind of sourcing needed for "Republic of" naming

I've looked at all of the links your provided, but none of them is even close to satisfying RS for this. One or two of them are sufficient for a nickname, but there is as yet no evidence of any interim name change. I'll break them down below:

• The two coin links don't seem to describe any coin with the name, or even a state coin the was different from the U.S. one other than the year.
• Joiner did not provide any source for the republic name. Operating as a de facto republic and changing the name of the state are two separate things.
• A period personal letter by an unknown author with the name "Republic of" is not any more official than someone sending a letter today with "People's Republic of California." (It could be sufficient to establish it as a period nickname, boast, or slur.) Now, if some sort of postal cancellation stamp was used on the envelope with the description it would add some weight at least very locally. Red Harvest (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Perrin's book link refers only to a list associated with flags, and without notes as to the source of the name. While the name chosen is useful for classifying the timeline in the list, that does not make it an official name.
• ElectronicScotland uses the name in parenthesis as does the original text. This makes sense because it was not the actual name.
• Jefferson Historical Society is not providing any notes/sources for its flag page. It is far from RS. Unreferenced, erroneous/hearsay flag pages have been the primary sources for several of the deleted articles.
• Patriotic Flags website is even more dubious than the above since it is a web sales listing.
• Fodors provides no notes or sourcing for the name.
• And the worst example is the Markgchurchill blog. Why? Because if you check the hyperlink within it is a circular reference to Wikipedia! The page it referenced was named and created by a 12 year old (in good faith.) I've seen this sort of thing happen a number of times, where something mistakenly written in Wikipedia becomes the source for blogs and even news articles.

Summarizing, what we need are some official acts/legisltation/govt. proclamations etc. using "Republic of Louisiana" as an official name. This would work as primary sourcing. Reliable secondary sourcing would most likely refer to them, completing the picture. Red Harvest (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

League of Lezhë

The League of Lezhë was a military alliance rather than political union.--Zoupan 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless the dispute has been dissolved, the page should remain the same. The last time I checked, the dispute was still being discussed. Anasaitis (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion ended in June 2013. See Talk:League_of_Lezhë#Military_alliance.--Zoupan 22:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well. As long as the debate has ended, then the article can be changed. I will check on the discussion myself, to make sure, when I can find the time. Anasaitis (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Thank you.--Zoupan 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. ElKevbo (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What? How am I engaging in an edit war? All I did was disagree with you over the contents of one article. I made one edit, and that's it. I haven't made multiple revisions, and I left no insults on the talk page. I have done nothing wrong. There is no edit war to speak of. Anasaitis (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Do not leave half-arsed bull messages for me. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) My apologies if you were offended by my message. Please try to understand that it has been frustrating dealing with users who have made the same edit. They are going against the consensus, and other users have even had the nerve to lie to me with claims to the contrary. As such, I am at wit's end. My apologies if I let my frustrations get the better of me. Anasaitis (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No problems! It's one of those subjects. Keep Calm and Carry On! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR

Hello. You appear to have already broken the WP:1RR (one revert per 24 hours rule) at the article ISIL for which you may get blocked. Please slow down on your reverts and seek consensus first, especially when other editors disagree with your views. Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of violating such a rule. Technically speaking, I've only been able to revert once or twice (see the discussion on the talk), and even if that doesn't matter, any violation of the rule was strictly unintentional. Also, next time please read the note on the edit page before you edit the infobox, please. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anasaitis reported by User:RGloucester (Result: ). Thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, including the violation of a 1RR restriction that was imposed by applicable community-authorized discretionary sanctions, as you did at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 07:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

From WP:EW: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." Note that per WP:1RR, a 1RR restriction is treated in exactly the same way as the overarching 3RR restriction. Either way, reaching the revert limit and then reverting again after little more than 24 hours is still likely to be treated as a violation per WP:GAMING, and that is precisely what you appeared to be doing on the article. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you were coming from. A disputed piece of content undergoing an active RfC should arguably not be changed when the discussion is still ongoing. However, making the change was hardly unreasonable given the large majority in favor of doing so in the RfC. Repeatedly reverting over it is not the solution and not an excuse for edit warring, especially on an article with a very strict reversion restriction. Swarm ♠ 07:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)