Hello, Theklan, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are a course instructor leading a class project.

New to Wikipedia or want to learn about best practices for Wikipedia assignments?

Go through our online training for educators

The training includes instructions for setting up a structured course page, with tools for tracking student work and encouraging peer review. Please also see this helpful advice for instructors.

If you run into problems or want some feedback on your Wikipedia assignment plans, try posting to the education noticeboard.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay after your assignment is finished! --Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Theklan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:Umayyad_Mosquee_panoramic.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— raekyT 10:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is now possible to localize the RefToolbar gadget to different languages. If you're interested, let me know. Kaldari (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards.

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January 10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Korrika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baiona. 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) 10:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Korrika at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theklan:

I've included in the Code Talkers article the information that you requested about Basque code talkers, including the link to the investigation (in spanish). I don't know if you can act as reviewer and take a look to the update (it has to be reviewed yet).

Thanks a lot.

Hello! The edition is great... but I don't know how to act as a reviewer! -Theklan (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theklan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see no indication that you and your students are working through the Wikiedufoundation. The contact person is User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed). I think it best you contact her before proceeding.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:. You can see it in Basque Wikipedia. I'm not asking to revert the article here, but to give me access to the text I want to move to the dorrespondent sandbox in the Basque Wikipedia. I don't think is difficult to understand. -Theklan (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's at User:Theklan/Mailegu kontratu. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Lourdes Iriondo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basque Country

Txillardegi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basque Country

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carles Puigdemont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored the bot warning and continued to insert this dab link on multiple occasions. Stop doing so! Get a grip! ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 3 times in less than 24 hrs, edit warring is not acceptable, see WP:3RR. If you do it again you will be reported. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardWeiss: You have reverted 3 times in less than 24 hrs, edit warring is not acceptable, see WP:3RR. If you do it again you will be reported. -Theklan (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I haven't reverted at all in the last 24 hours, you've been warned. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so I'm reverting what you haven't reverted. Great. Report it if you want, so we can have an admin see how you are behaving. -Theklan (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It is standard procedure to warn new editors about 3RR. You didn't revert me but if you edit war again you are liable to be blocked. Claiming I have done something wrong isn't a defence. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardWeiss: Do whatever you think you must do. I'm not here to discuss with you, but to make a better Encyclopedia. -Theklan (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring does not make a better encyclopedia nor does repeatedly linking to a dab page. I have done what I needed to do which is warn you re 3RR. No admin will block a new user who hasn't been warned, you now have. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a new user. -Theklan (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, brilliant coordination between accounts! -Theklan (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Carles Puigdemont. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 5 June 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Did nothing wrong, but defending the neutrality of an article agains the agenda of two editors with lots of free time. Theklan (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry you think that. Your next block is likely to be indefinite. WP:EW is not an optional policy. Yamla (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't make an edition war, I have reverted to the situation where there was consensus. Call it wikiarcheology. Theklan (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

" What we've got here is-- failure to communicate." No, seriously. Even if you are convinced you are right, you need to seek consensus on the article talk page, then seek dispute resolution. And clearly, from the discussion on the talk page, you did not have consensus. Contrarily, you acted against consensus.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2018 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There was even a voting and a discussion in ANI. But hey! No answer there! I did nothing wrong, is not that I'm convinced I'm right, is that I followed the rules and they didn't. Theklan (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you appear to be incapable of either understanding or admitting that you were in the wrong, allowing you to continue making unblock requests is a waste of time. Talkpage access revoked. I'm sorely tempted to extend the block as well, since I strongly suspect that you will continue to edit war on your return, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:36, 5 June 2018 (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.

<<ec>>And given the brevity of your block and your continued inability to address the reason for the block, I'm inclined to extend it.Please provide a link to the ANI thread that ruled in your favor. I fear the nenxt admin to come along will remove your talk page access otherwise.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim I haven't said that there was an ANI ruling in my favor. I have said there is an ANI whithout answers. -Theklan (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. A lot of blather from disputants. A lot of hair pulling and kicking of dirt onto shoes. Nothing productive. I also saw your comment on the 3RR noticeboard. You really need to rethink your approach to seeking unblock.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: NOT true! He has offered very sensible reasons as to why Carles Puigdemont should be described as being Catalan. Calling him Spanish is offensive as he always describes himself as Catalan. I'm very surprised by your ad hominem remarks: 'blather', 'kicking of dirt onto shoes'. A general consensus has been reached, and Theklan acted on that. Unblock! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: I would like to make the rather obvious point that if consensus was truly reached, there would have been no need for Theklan to make four reverts in under 24 hours by themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "the rather obvious point" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia; please mellow your language. I'm also at a loss as to what you mean, for Theklan is but one person. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Other editors agreeing with Theklan's change could have reverted to it. Instead, Theklan took it upon themselves to revert four times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theklan took it upon themselves - you say this for the second time; can you explain please? Or are you suggesting that he is not one person? He is a multitude? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: See English personal pronouns#Singular they. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like gender neutral language, perfectly acceptable nowadays, we don't know Theklan's gender, google it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: - 'himself'.

@RichardWeiss: - how horrible! Read his User profile! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: What is horrible? Nothing in the profile, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamla, NeilN, Yunshui and Dlohcierekim for this lesson. Now I know that I need to convince three other editors to revert the co-ordinated efforts of the enemies of Wikipedia only two times a day. Great! Now... could you please resolve the problem we have with this three editors that are pushing the limits of common sense? -Theklan (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to generously assume that the above was intended as sarcasm... The dispute appears to have continued, so I've started an RFC on the talkpage (which is something that should have been done some time ago, IMHO). Hopefully a formal RFC will make it easier to establish consensus regarding the page. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: I'm not intending to be sarcastic, just to note that I've been blocked because other users are WP:Game. I'm very happy this has happen, so the events now are going to be discussed faster and better. I assume good faith on you, I'm also an admin in two Wikipedia projects and I know that, sometimes, we are wrong in our decissions. -Theklan (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iñaki LL. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 18:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

{{unblock}} Can someone explain why I have been blocked? I don't understand the reason. Theklan (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

• I was still typing out the explanation when you replied. Here it is. Please do not misuse the block appeal template again or I will revoke your talk page access without further warning.

You are blocked because you showed up to an AN/I thread that was completely unrelated to you, and which you had no business involving yourself in, specifically for the reason of personally attacking BellenaBlanca, who has just recently had you blocked. Given the warnings already given to you above, it would not be unfair to indefinitely block you at this point. Instead, consider this is your last warning. If you engage in any further edit warring, grudges, battlegrounding, personal attacks, or harassment, or cause any disruptions of any kind, you will be blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]