User talk:The 51st Division

March 2015

Hello, I'm Coffee. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Gao Xiaosong— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers station

Please review WP:IPCV; in popular culture-style items should have citations indicating that they received attention from third-party sources. Also, as discussed at WP:BRD, when an edit you make is reverted, it is almost always best practice to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page if you disagree, rather than simply reinserting your edit. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits

Hello, a couple of general editing suggestions for you to consider:

Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 00:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Korean Air Lines Flight 007, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spy plane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. We're getting a bit sick of that "He once signed an autograph..." nonsense, so you will need to commit to stop adding it if you want to be unblocked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

The 51st Division (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Funny. Because no one EVER told me or warned me anything about "that nonsense" before blocking me, and that was not even the main contribution of my edits if any of you guys bothered to look back the edit history. But I guess blocking a longtime user indefinitely without any inquiry or notification is a more efficient way of doing things right?The 51st Division (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As per below, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various accounts have repeatedly been making this same edit and very similar ones going back months - see here, here, here, here, here, for just a few examples. It appears to be socking and/or some sort of organized disruption, and I do not believe you just happened to make exactly the same addition purely by coincidence - the only difference is you tried to hide it among some other additions. Please explain what this is all about and what's behind it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the only difference is you tried to hide it among some other additions."

Cool. So at least you now admit that I did make legitimate contributions to the page instead of "unconstructive...vandalism"? (and I saw you kept them while removing the "autograph nonsense".) And regarding the "autograph nonsense": no I did not happen to make exactly the same addition purely by coincidence, because I copied and pasted it from a previous edit I saw while scanning through history. Because:

I know it's true;
Brady Haran 'is' a well-known person, so
it's an interesting trivia;
I was not aware of the existence of a bloodh wiki editing war (seriously look at that page who would even bother having an editing war there? About an autograph?)

And no I am not a part of some "organized disruption". All the examples you gave were made by clearly puppet accounts with almost no previous contributions, while I have a list of wikipedia contributions going back years. Seriously, use your head; if I want to start socking, I make fake accounts, I don't use my own actual account. And yeah I'm pissed because I got banned indefinitely with pretty much no explaination or warning.The 51st Division (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that addition was made multiple times by, as you say, clearly some sort of sock/meat farm, and reverted every time by multiple different editors. Once you had seen it had previously been reverted you should have started a discussion on the talk page rather than insert it again. If you state clearly that you will not add it again unless you can get a prior consensus by discussion on the talk page, I will be happy to lift the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I'm at fault too for not having discussions first. Yes I promise I will not make any more Brady Haran autograph edits. The 51st Division (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all sorted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit re: Taipings

FYI, I think you're probably right about the Taiping flag edit, but you really shouldn't mark it as a minor edit. Marking something as a minor edit signifies that "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." "By contrast, a major edit is one that should be reviewed for its acceptability to all concerned editors. Any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not" is not a minor edit." Dbrote (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The 51st Division. 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]

YouTube channel

Hi, thanks for the help on Wikipedia! I was just wondering if you're the same person behind the The 51st Division youtube channel?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, The 51st Division. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization and Fairness Act. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization and Fairness Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization and Fairness Act 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/Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization and Fairness Act 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 until the discussion has finished.

Gabe114 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaluit Company moved to draftspace

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

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution required for copied text

Hi, The 51st Division. It appears that the Jaluit Company article you created contains text that is directly translated from the Jaluit-Gesellschaft article on German Wikipedia. However, you did not attribute that source.

Although copying from Wikipedia pages is allowed, our copyright licensing still requires that we attribute the original source. As stated at WP:COPYWITHIN: At a minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page — that is, the page into which the material is copied — stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g. Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary on the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes on the talk pages of both the source and destination.

Of course, this includes translations from other language Wikipedias. You can find the editing guideline at WP:TFOLWP. Please let me know if this needs further clarification or you have any questions. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CactusWriter. I’m not familiar with the copy policy. I originally translated from the German Wiki as part of the draft to start writing. I have since added more content from different sources (labeled in the references section), and removed parts of the German translation that I consider to be unnecessary. I feel the article now is different enough from the German article. Do I still need the copy attribution? The 51st Division (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it still needs the attribution because the original translated parts are in the page history. And there may still be some closely-paraphrased text remaining. Ideally it should be done with the first edit, but attribution can still be covered now by adding a null edit with an edit summary such as "Some content on this page was created by translation of the existing German Wikipedia article at de:Jaluit-Gesellschaft; see its history for attribution." In the future, when translating from a foreign language Wikipedia page, it's recommended that we copy the entire translated page as the first edit of a new draft and give attribution in that edit summary. That single summary will then cover all copyright licensing needs. And thereafter we can go ahead and edit, add, delete or paraphrase as we would typically do with any draft. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]