User talk:Santiago84

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page File talk:Vladimir Putin with Hugo Chavez 26 November 2004-5.jpg has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. WikiTome ^Talk 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you are coming close to breaking the WP:3RR policy. The "Three Revert Rule" states no one can make more than three reverts to an article within a 24 hour period. You have already reverted Crusades 3 times, if you do it again, your account will be locked from editing. Please discuss your disagreement with the material on Talk:Crusades.

Also, you need to cite a reference that says the Islamic literature concerning Jews and Muslims defending Jerusalem from the Crusaders is incorrect. Your personal belief that Jews would hate Muslims is not the same as citing a work by a credential scholar. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just had a look at your edit, and I see that at one point you re-added [1] "female gender cutting". What I meant when I wrote that "I also don't have a problem with your using "cutting" instead" was in reference to the term "female genital cutting", not "female gender cutting". As I already pointed out, the latter is a neologism (c.f. [2]), and those aren't allowed per WP:NOTNEO. In future, if you want to use the acronym "FGC", it'll have to be for "female gender cutting", not "female gender cutting". Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolut right... sry, i just recogniced that i used the shortcut "FGC/FGM" wrong all the time, i will change to Female genital cutting. Thx again, and sry again for this missunderstanding --Santiago84 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santiago, this is cymru.lass. I just wanted to notify you that this recent edit you made to female genital cutting has been reverted. This is because you placed a page protection template on a page that was not protected. Placing a protection template on a page does not protect the page; to do that place a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks! --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iam really sorry, i recognized it too. I will not do a protection template again. Next time i will be more carefull and place a Protection request. Thanks for notifying me. --Santiago84 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Signature test --Santiago84 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's no big deal Another suggestion: Your signature doesn't include a link to your userpage or your talk page. Are you signing your talk page posts with ~~~~? If not, please do. Signing pages with ~~~~ gives a link to both your user and user talk pages as well as the time and date. If you do use ~~~~ and just have a custom signature without links, could you go to Special:Preferences and change it to include at least one internal link? Thanks --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 04:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I kind of messed up some formatting, so your signature tests probably didn't work... Sorry about that. I fixed it. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 04:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You certain belong to such persons who dont want to see the truth" (Santiago84) RTFM Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You removed a mention of Turkey, explaining in your edit summary that Turkey was not part of EU, and not neutral. The EU did not exist at that time so this is not relevant. My understanding is that Turkey was neutral during WWII until early '45 when the Axis was all but defeated. Turkey then ceremonially joined the Allies. Turkey was neutral when the Nazis planned and executed the Holocaust. Accordingly, I reverted your edit and wanted to explain why. Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Influenced by the early war triumphs of Nazi Germany, Turkey decided to initiate cooperation with the Axis; on 18/06/1941 it signed a pact of friendship with Third Reich"^[1] The Islam itself played a much greater role in world war 2 and the holocaust then most persons know or believe in. Here are some keywords. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, Hitlers pro islamic quotations, islamic institutians were build during World War 2 in Nazi-Germany. Turkey is and was islamic. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni played a major role during the holocaust and fled later to Turkey. Turkey officially forbade granting visas to German Jews and was responsible for the Struma incident. Turkey should not be named in the sentence and the context. But i guess if you are pro islamic or pro turkey any of these facts and therefor the truth will not be in your interest, so go on. Iam german with jewish american ancestors (26 years old) and today is the international holocaust rememberance day. I will not have any further disscusions here. Historical facts and logic itself can be manipulated but not ongoing. --Santiago84 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago84, if you continue to follow WP, I recommend you to read the article Necdet Kent to learn more on the subject matter. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am a Jew and here in the United States, we observe Yom HaShoah in late April or early May. I am neither pro-Islamic nor pro-Turkey. I could criticize Turkey at length, and would not hesitate to do so when justified by the facts. Armenia comes to mind. However, facts are facts. Turkey, despite its many faults, never joined the Axis. Its troops did not engage in combat during World War II, and so it can accurately be characterized as neutral during that war. It may have been a bit hypocritical for them to join the Allies at the last minute when the war was almost won, but they did. And the international community accepted Turkey as a charter member of the United Nations. Those are the facts of history. No need to feel bad about it, or about me participating in discussion about it. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disscusion about Turkey i will not continue, we have some points in common but also different attitudes toward some basics. Yom HaShoah is also a day of rememberence here, but i ment International Holocaust Remembrance Day. I myself am not really a Jew by law, iam evangelic, it is a bit complicated. But thats not the point, i feel very attached to Judaism, because of jewish behaviour and yiddish words with which i grew up. I cant put away my christian or jewish identification, and never will. I hope to one day be able to sware in front of a Beth Din that i will follow and keep the Seven Laws of Noah. Iam on the other hand also german, and therefor i give myself the responsibility as a descendant of germans to not forget what happened nor to allow any manipulated truth of history. I seperate Germans and their descendants who did war crimes from those germans who did not. I know that within a totalitarian regime, soldiers were forced to battle, if they would not have obeyed they would have been killed. But any orders of war crimes executed by soldiers are in no way to explain, even with facing the own death. In my point of view there are worser thinks then dead, and to obey executing a war crime is one of these things. It is also difficult to explain and to understand, exscpeially when you see pictures or movies. But i also need to have a cold logic that not every german soldier who fought in battle was a Nationalsocialist by choice, nor would i name them or their children "Nazis". On the other hand soldiers who "watched" warcrimes are in my point of view also guilty. Its hard to explain, but this is my attitude how me as a german thinks and feels about participation and responsibilities. I dont like any compensation of the crimes of Nazi Germany like comparing it with the Israel's military operation in the Gazza strip or that Germany was not the only country who did war crimes. Germany has the responsibility of the War not any other Axis Power. I hope you dont feel offended with my text or previous statement but today is also a day of rememberence, why such thougths and temper are in my mind. I wish you well, Shalom. --Santiago84 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your personal background, you may be interested in Joseph Asher, an article I wrote about a rabbi who worked for reconciliation between the Jews and the Germans. Let me know your thoughts. Cullen328 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually iam sorry to never have heart about him. What i read there and my conclusion is that he should have had more listeners and more political influence. His thoughts and ways have been logic, loyal to Judaism, but he also cared about jewish identification among germans and Germany itself. A very honorable man with noble intentions.

I have a problem with the sentence or the meaning "A new generation is growing up that was not born when the horrible crime was committed and for which they cannot be held responsible..." I think that some germans nowadays can be held responsible, but not for war crimes commited. These crimes have been done by persons and groups in the name of the country. Especially some descendants of Nationalsocialists who have themself an anti-semitic attitude, such persons should in my point of view receive responsibility because they want to keep Nationalsocialism up.

But back to Joseph Asher. What i find really impressive was his intention to work German - Jewish relationsship out after and during very difficult times. The Germany i can respect needs the jewish background.

Have you ever been interested or thought in and about Judaism in Yugoslavia? I have the feeling that such an issue should need more attention in Wikipedia. I would like to continue and collect references for Jews in Yugoslavia, i could imagine that a lot of Jews living in the Countries of former Yugoslavia would be disappointed when they dont find historical background of Judaism existing there. I have the feeling that Jewish communities there should need more attention. --Santiago84 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments about Joseph Asher. I wrote about him because I knew him and he performed the marriage between my wife and I nearly 30 years ago. Our oldest son is your age. Perhaps you could see if there are any German language sources available online about Rabbi Asher?

As for the Jews of Yugoslavia, I would be reluctant to take on such a project, as I expect a very high level of scholarship on article about broad areas of Jewish history, and I know relatively little about Yugoslavia. I am not an expert in Jewish history, although I have read quite a bit in this field of study. However, a will do a little bit of preliminary reading about this specific topic, and let you know what I find out. Shalom to you, and thanks for letting me know about International Holocaust Memorial Day. Cullen328 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You knew him personaly and he even performed your marriage? Amazing story. I would guess you are a person who receives automatically a status of spiritual lead by persons around you. It was a pleasure. I will search for Joseph Asher on german sites, i will also keep in mind to start the german wikipedia page for Joseph Asher and translate the page. I doubt that in our small library in town i will find anything, but i will keep in mind when iam next time near by. The point with Yugoslavia is not necessary, i thought you would maybe know one or two keywords on which i could focus my research. toda vShalom. --Santiago84 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First at all, i recognized that i missed to appologize for my previous content which could be taken offensive. It is normaly not my nature to be rude, you are a friendly person and you dont have to stand for listening to my temper (i hope i used the right words).

I have not found anything about Joseph Ashner yet. I will extend my search patterns for possible german terms of his name. Maybe some recordings to his previous name Ansbacher are in existence. Even in the German section for merits of Germany he isnt mentioned. I will add him and work the german Wikipedia site of him out this weekend. --Santiago84 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One day you deleted a sentence because, in your view, it said the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust. The next day you added a section saying the Muslims are responsible. I'm sorry if you don't like my edit summary, but I was being truthful: your edits seem to deflect blame for the Holocaust from the Nazis to the Muslims. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove other editors' comments from articles' Talk pages. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? i wanted to delete a sentence because it seemed to name every german beeing part of the holocaust. Where did i remove others editors comments on articles? --Santiago84 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot that you deleted my Talk page comment? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mixed up the Talk page with the article page. But not intentionaly, as you can see on my posting to your comment. --Santiago84 (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you? you started deleting valid additions based on references of mine just because it opposes your personal believe. You even projected your conclusion of my additions to be my intention of the additions i made: "(cur | prev) 23:47, 13 March 2011 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) (99,467 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Santiago84 (talk); So now the Muslims are responsible for the Holocaust and the Nazis aren't; interesting theory. (TW)) (undo)" just by naming Mohammad Amin al-Husayni involved in the holocaust? This alone shows you objectivity. Then you warn me because of three reversions and an edit war i engaged? Sorry my intention is to support the truth and make eligible additions. I cant take you or your method of working serious.

Maybe you'd prefer to explain why you're edit-warring at WP:ANEW? You made four reverts at Template:The Holocaust in 27 hours. Three different editors have reverted you. What's the matter? Are we all Muslim dupes? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in history of these articles, a lot of other persons tried to add additions and have also been ignored and prevented from adding informations. Can you do anything else then to provoke others by projecting your believe of others opinion into their intentions? This reminds me of supressing someones opinion. --Santiago84 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of somebody who can't build consensus on the Talk page, so he tries to bully his opinion into the template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANEW#User:Santiago84 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Santiago84 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're being discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#User:Santiago84. It is probable that you will be blocked for a longer time, since you seem to be ignoring all the advice people have given you about finding consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbpjmuf (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Dbpjmuf (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you want to achive with this, but to project the unlogic of your unmoral conclusions on me and then try to strengthen your claim by writting a vandalism warning on my talk page, even with me trying to prevent vandalism, will be unsuccessful. --Santiago84 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you are vandalising Wikipedia, so please would you both stop issuing inappropriate templates? Santiago84, would you leave the POV-statement tag for a day or two while it's discussed? Dbpjmuf, would you please rejoin the discussion at Talk:Female genital cutting so that the issue can be resolved? I'm going to leave a copy of this message at User talk:Dbpjmuf. Jakew (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jakew: You initialy wrote "many of us personally take a stance against FGC, but Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy that means that articles cannot take a stance one way or the other" after i opened a discussion on the Talk page of FGM. This Sentence and staging me on same logical position as User Dbpjmuf, who shares a belief that "modification" describes FGM better than "injury", shows me that you want to simulate a "third" view to a matter based on right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I agree with Dpbjmuf that neutral language is preferable. However, I agree with you that quoting the WHO does not violate WP:NPOV. Feel free to ignore me if you think I'm too involved to give objective advice, but in my humble opinion you're both in danger of getting blocked for edit-warring. Jakew (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath. Take a walk outside. Wikipedia will still be here. --Utopianfiat (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox was put here by mistake.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Dbpjmuf, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dbpjmuf (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santiago84. You have new messages at Jrtayloriv's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The page has been moved, I went through and changed all the "FGC" to "FGM", as well as some of the usage of the word "cutting" in the article. I didn't change every instance of "cutting" to "mutilation" because in some cases it was referring to the act of cutting and not the overall mutilation. If you're gonna change anything else I would think it through a lot, its not worth provoking the people who like the term FGC because it will just incite an edit war and give ammunition to the people who think FGC should be used for neutrality reasons. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if a request to move back to FGC comes down the line sometime soon. Vietminh (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but it is a real great success that the page has been moved, i will party it! thanks to you. Well there are 4 things i want to follow for the FGM site. 1. Update content after the release of new studies. 2. prevent any unserious edit. 3. search for better sources to update or replace some content. 4. Changing the term inside prevalence listings from "cutting" to "mutilation", but this is not really necessary. Thank you again!.--Santiago84 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, when I came across that page I was quite surprised to see that it wasn't using the term FGM and I wanted to ensure that Wikipedia wasn't getting caught up in some battle of words that only existed on the talk page. I didn't notice those two references to cutting in the prevalence section, I changed them both to "FGM" because that will probably be easier for the pro FGC people to stomach. I'm sure there's other uses of the word cutting that ought to be changed given the title change, I just didn't have the patience to sit there and change them all (took me a half hour to FGC -> FGM haha). Vietminh (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the current discussion at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Prevalence: I am trying to help—you should not make any further comments without including a proposal (what wording should be changed?) and sources (precise references to support the proposal). It would be reasonable to ask other editors whether they know of any sources to support a proposal, but you have been repeating an edit (that I have not examined) after being reverted by Middayexpress. In the discussion, the only editor who has provided sources is Middayexpress. Particularly in contentious areas, it is important to follow the talk page guidelines carefully, and there is no benefit from making general observations: only actionable proposals will help the article. You might also like to review WP:TP for use of colon to indent comments when replying. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the discussion on terminology. We would welcome your input on this compromise. Vietminh (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah actually it's a pretty serious issue. If you had gone to the issue page you would have seen what issues I had written. It's a very serious issue. At least two sources have been plagiarized, and when I corrected this, my corrections were reverted. I believe there is probably a lot more plagiarism in the article due to this.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santiago84, first, I seriously meant nothing negative about the comment about not knowing all the guidelines and such. NO ONE does. Seriously. Some of us are stronger in some areas, while others have other areas of strength. So, that truly wasn't anything negative. When it comes to copyright stuff, I'd be glad to help you gain a better understanding if you'd like. The quick summary is, because it is against the law, and the legal nightmare it can be, copyvio is blanked or removed immediately. It's one of the few things on Wikipedia that's not open to discussion beforehand (BLP violations are another). So, in this particular case, the proper action is to blank the page, then to fix the content (or, if no copyvio is found, deal with the editor in question who mis-tagged so they do not do so again). In this case, copyvio did exist, so it's a good thing the tag was put in place.

Fortunately, for things like that, once tagged, the article gets added to a queue for review and cleanup. So, no biggie there. Henrietta did the right thing. If even one source was plagiarized, the steps are still the same: blank-tag the article, fix the issues, then remove the tag. Discussion only comes into the equation if the article was mis-tagged, but that's after review. Anyway, I'm always all over the place on Wikipedia... articles of all sorts, problems of all sorts. So, if you ever need a hand or have a question, please let me know. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as i wrote: This issue is a provocating one, if then the others opinion gets contested it leads to a personel manner. Then comes the language understanding, iam german but have american ancestry, but even then i can not be sure to use the right words that express my real meaning. Then i also have my proud (who does not?... well ok i know a lot of persons who don't have), i already learned that on such a level the actions on guidelines are more "direct" and by the book then a normal dispute. But alone that you wrote me a personel "friendly" text on my talk page shew me that your intention isnt also a subtile one, because you went through effort to explain this to me. And of course, then there would be sympathy, you can't be sure that the other one would be a person you would really trust. But its the internet, why i ignore this. So, thanks for your effort of explaining me, some persons would not have gone through it and again my honest appologizes for an unpropper response. Hope you are well. Thanks. [but an absolut different question, how do i upload a photo on my profile? ;-), i just read that you are a Star Trek Fan too? LOL]

Hi! No worries about anything. And, again, not understanding the bazillion policies and guidelines is nothing bad - I sure as heck know I don't understand them all. Heck, I love comics, but I rarely edit those, because the comics articles have a ton of extra guidelines that I don't understand. Kinda funny, huh. :-)

As for Star Trek... not just a fan, but I make Star Trek - LoL! Check out the link on my userpage... I'm the Chief Lighting Designer and one of the producers for Star Trek Phase 2. This is also the reason why I am a bit more up to speed on the copyright stuff here than others... not because of a failing on their part, but because I have to deal with that stuff for the Star Trek Phase 2 stuff all the time.

Now... on to uploading a picture...

• On the right, you will see "Toolbox"

• In the toolbox links, you will see "Upload file"

• From there, assuming you took the picture, select "It is entirely my own work"

• In the next section, do not select the "Upload to Commons" part. Instead, select:

Items to be used in an article should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to upload to the English Wikipedia instead (not recommended), please click here. <--- Click there

• From there, choose the image, and fill out the "File Description" section. This is important (for the same reason as the copyvio issue we've been discussing). Make sure you fill it all out correctly.

• Select a licensing (I used the Creative Commons 3.0 License for mine)

• Hit "Upload File" at the bottom... that's it! You're done!!! :-)

Now, if you run into problems, or are not sure you got the licensing or file description information correct, let me know, and I'll fix it before it gets submitted for deletion. After that, you can figure out how to use it on your userpage by looking at mine (simply hit the top most edit button and view the code - as long as you don't hit save, it wont mess anything up). If after looking at the code, it looks too daunting, let me know and I will help you with that too.

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks it took a bit, but i got it over some sideways. Well my favorite Star Trek Characters are Miles O'Brien and Malcolm Reed. I will check Star Trek Phase 2 out.--Santiago84 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You got a few things wrong in the process. I'm going to jump in and fix them for you. No biggie. I'll be honest with you, I mangled my first one. I had help fixing it - so, now it's my turn to return the favor! I'll let you know when it's done, so you can check it out and make sure it's correct. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• I updated the "Description" field - it was blank. It now reads "Picture of Wikipedia user Santiago84"
• I added a license (all files on Wikipedia must have a license). You can click on the link to see how it's currently licensed. Of the licenses allowable on Wikipedia, I think it's the best one to use for such, but if you want to look at the other ones, let me know and I'll help you pick another one.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, i appreciate it!--Santiago84 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santiago84, I've left you and others a quick primer of the only way quotes can be used in an article to avoid copyright issues. It's located here.[3] - click the "Show" button to view it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago, I encourage you very strongly to delete your last message at Talk:Female genital mutilation. I know there have been some behavioural issues from other users, but that doesn't excuse making personal attacks. Please? Jakew (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning, but i only defend myself from personal attacks. But very nice that you are concerned about my person.--Santiago84 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about all personal attacks. That includes claims that you're inadequately educated and claims that other editors are insane. But if we respond in kind then the atmosphere just gets worse. The only way to maintain a civil, productive environment is to ignore them or, if necessary, make appropriate complaints. Jakew (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are absolut right. But my integrity, my principles and responsibilitys, i give myself, let me draw this move. Even if it seems absolut inappropriate for others. I included in my text logic and reaction to provocation. Due to i suffered on a sociological level of provocation by Henriettapussycat i choosed these extrem method as my reaction. The difference is i don't cover my intention and i create a more intensiv stilistic method. --Santiago84 (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Santiago, you just essentially accused someone of being a psychotic Nazi, and consider this a logical and reasonable response? Henrietta is right, and has been right from the start; the fact that you're not getting that does not justify behaviour like this. Ironholds (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the context, I think "Narzism" was probably a typo for "narcissism". Unacceptable, but probably not a reference to Nazis. Jakew (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta is not right. A copyright violation and plagiarism are not given due to the definition of both and the real logic behind it. One claim, the next claim and the next claim, after some time claim number one seems to be true but is still a claim and so on. --Santiago84 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jakew for raising this matter, and for attempting to explain the situation to Santiago84. In view of the response here, I have posted a comment at the talk page where I propose that if Santiago84 will not remove their comment, then we (editors not named in the attack) must do so. The over reaction to the copyvio tag is totally unfounded—even if the reaction is totally correct and all the other editors who have endorsed the current situation are wrong, the reaction is still wrong because it not helping anyone or any thing. Personal statements with no possible beneficial outcome do not belong on an article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell... i will not remove my personel opinion... can't you make it simple for all and block me for 2 weeks due to my personal attack?... [here is something funny, consider it as a break for exhausting thoughts "Lost - what happens next" > [4]] --Santiago84 (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago, there's no need for anyone to be blocked if we can resolve the situation. If I remove the attacks, will you agree not to revert me? Jakew (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write this stuff witout a purpose, i will not support the revert of my statements, i rather take a ban. But i will not revert if anyone (except Henriettapussycat) would remove my statement.--Santiago84 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough; now blocked. See you in two days. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Santiago84, just so you know, since you are new and probably do not, you can request an unblock by putting {{unblock|reason=(your reason here) ~~~~}} right below this. This does not mean you will get unblocked. Without you (a) willingly retracting your statements, (b) indicating you understand how they are against policy, and (c) agreeing you will not do so again, I doubt any admin would unblock you. I am simply informing you of how to request one since normally it comes along with the block message. I can also virtually guarantee you, whether the block expires or you get unblocked early, if you continue to write stuff that can be construed as a personal attack against other editors, you'll likely get a longer block. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but it was not my intention to oppose my blocking due to i suggested it.--Santiago84 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Talk:Female genital mutilation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is (for additional context) in response to a post by you insinuating that a user had some sort of "mental condition". Yes, 72 hours is a comparatively long time, but blocks are intended to be preventative, and since the previous (48 hour) block did not convince you that you should comment on the user's contributions rather than the user, we'll see if this helps. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Just because i responded to an insult i get blocked but the user with the original insult is not? I get blocked without a warning? This can have a serious respond by other Admins of abusing your Admin rights by threatening others with them.

BTW...

The copryright policy of Unicef reads "UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs. In the case of some publications, UNICEF has licensed the rights to third parties." and "UNICEF is committed to making information about its programmes and operations available to the public, unless the information is deemed confidential."

The copyright policy of WHO reads "The information in the various pages of the WHO web site is issued by the World Health Organization for general distribution. Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study but not for sale or for use in conjunction with commercial purposes. Any use of information in the web site should be accompanied by an acknowledgment of WHO as the source, citing the uniform resource locator (URL) of the article"

This IS a permission!--Santiago84 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't. In the first case, "UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs. In the case of some publications, UNICEF has licensed the rights to third parties." means "UNICEF has all copyrights except where copyright is licensed to specific third-parties", and Wikipedia is not one of them. The next quote is nothing more than a touchy-feely idea of "we'd like our stuff to be public", which is distinct from "we'd like our stuff to be public and acceptable under a CC-BY-SA license".
• In the second case, "Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study but not for sale or for use in conjunction with commercial purposes." - that is not compatible with the CC-BY-SA license, which allows for commercial reuse, and neither is it compatible with Wikipedia, which is hardly private study. Ironholds (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The major permission:

"UNICEF is committed to making information about its programmes and operations available to the public, unless the information is deemed confidential"

"The information in the various pages of the WHO web site is issued by the World Health Organization for general distribution."--Santiago84 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly advise you to drop it at this point, Santiago. Jakew (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the first quote is simply an aspirational comment. You're not understanding what "free from copyright" means; yes, UNICEF wants to make the information available. This means "stick it on their website". Again, the second quote has riders - "Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study but not for sale or for use in conjunction with commercial purposes." - which means the info is not acceptable under CC-BY-SA, which allows for commercial reuse. Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Santiago84 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(I got blocked by Admin Ironholds (talk) without a warning for responding to an insult, but the User with the original insult was not. I was threatend by Ironholds (talk) with his Admin rights. Furthermor these threat was applied because he thinks that i understand copyright issues wrong, i even linked to the permission which strictly allows the use of the material from the appropriate page) Santiago84 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having examined your recent edits, I do not see how unblocking you would at all benefit Wikipedia. AGK [•] 12:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ok Henriettapussycat knows Admin Ironholds, Admin Ironholds knows a second Admin. Henreittapussycat insults me, i respondend. I get blocked by Ironholds but the original User making the insult is not. I request an unblock and Admin AGK, who knows Admin Ironholds, confirms the block. This looks like what?--Santiago84 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know Henrietta in that "I've had to deal with you lambasting her"; I don't think I'd ever encountered her prior to the FGM copyright concerns. AGK lives approximately 300 miles away from me and our interactions have been limited to occasionally looking over each others articles. Screaming "it's a conspiracy" will not help you. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not like piling on in a case where an editor is blocked, but after everything that has occurred, this comment at the article talk was extraordinary, and a 72 hour block was highly appropriate. The persistent misunderstanding of copyright and plagiarism is highly irritating (and blockable if put into effect), but the tactless throwaway and highly personal attack on a named editor was totally unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken some time to review the sum total of your contributions to this project. In 437 edits, you've managed to be blocked three times, all legitimately. Your overall pattern of behaviour leaves me no confidence at all that when this current block expired, your conduct would be in line with that expected of editors of this encyclopaedia, and your lack of understanding of our copyright policies is a major barrier to you maintaining editing privileges. In general, I do not believe you have the competence to edit constructively at this time, and that letting you edit again in three days would not be in the best interest of the project. Accordingly, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Courcelles 12:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 2) Ditto Ironholds, but this is all irrelevant. If we allowed our users to be churlishly uncivil at will, things will have come to a pretty pass indeed. AGK [•] 12:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK Well... you don't mention the behaviour at will of Ironholds.--Santiago84 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ironholds: I will report you for abuse of Admin rights, provokation and threatening others.

@ Johnuniq: I was insulted first, but nobody mentions this.

And again for the copyright issue. These organisations welcome the use of their material and give their permission to copy it. Please loose your unlogical and untruthly attitude and stop acting professionality by argueing with rules and policies out of the context!.

@ Courcelles: Could you please also look at the content of my 437 edits and look why i was blocked and which persons reported me and the content of their edits please? --Santiago84 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC) latter addition: The first block happened by a report from Malik Shabazz after he insulted me, but he was not blocked. The second block was due to FGM and a respond to Henreittapussycats insult, but she was not blocked either. The third block now happened without a warning and was filled with a threat by Admin Ironholds. Now i get blocked undefinately? I would like to ask you to explain me again why my account is blocked legaly?--Santiago84 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to do so. Thank you for again demonstrating that you don't understand the basics of copyright law. Ironholds (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my restricted edit ability i have to do it this way.

[5]

SlimVirgin wrote:

• "I don't feel comfortable with Santiago making any edits to the article if he's arguing that what he does isn't plagiarism" You use a very old example of my edits, when i recognized that i have to use phrases like "The WHO states that" e.g. i updated the part you linked at 26th August as you can see here [6].
• ""Despite the long discussion we just had about copyright, and despite the copyvio tag being on the article for two weeks or so, Santiago said nothing about it, didn't remove it, and now defends it" What do you mean with i said nothing about it, didn't remove it, and defend it?I opposed that this entire matter was treated as plagiarism or copyright violation because in my view only while a sentence is missing, like > "The WHO states that", it doesn't become plagiarism due to the reference to the original WHO site is source enough. And i still think this way.
• "So I feel he should be asked not to edit the article again, or any article, until he acknowledges that he won't do this anymore, and points out any past examples so we can fix them" As you can see my possibilities are quiet restricted now, none the less you are not the right person who can say to me that i should not edit the article or any other articles again due to your behaviour of using very old edits of mine as evidence to accuse me of plagiarism even if i already updated a lot. Especially when i look at the quality of your edits >

• You added a comic style picture which belittles the entire issue which will definitively provoce new readers.
• You removed Gabon even it is named by references
• You removed the updated map of the real prevalence, as you can see the old map and the real prevalence named by official studies are not conform
• You removed entire sentences of the Classification section even when these sentences are informative
• You don't talk about your edits on the talk page before you edit

I don't support your edits on the article, you remove source content, use old informations, ignore facts and use my old edits, ignoring recent ones, and accuse me of continuous plagiarism.--Santiago84 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Santiago, you don't understand; you are not "restricted". You are blocked. The talkpage access was permitted to allow outside administrators and third parties to review your case, as they have done. Given that you have now decided to use it to vicariously edit, I'm removing talkpage access. You are blocked, Santiago - indefinitely. You can't edit or contribute to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure why this is something you're not understanding. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]