User talk:Saitzken

Thank you

Thank you again for your very polite and helpful comment on my talk page.  GuardianH  03:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I have no skin in the game as far as your edits go, but people criticizing them and describing your behavior as paranoid is pretty offensive. Saitzken (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message to Saitzken

Unfortunately, the astrological signs isn't due for inclusion in almost any biography on Wikipedia. Remsense 🌈 论 14:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, where does it say this? I think that because there are a whole lot of people who take these things extremely seriously, it would make sense to include them. Sure, it's trivial, but so is a lot of the early life section in most articles. Is it biographically important that Jimmy Carter was the first president to be born in a hospital? Saitzken (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2025 Azerbaijan-Russia diplomatic crisis has been accepted

2025 Azerbaijan-Russia diplomatic crisis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Saitzken (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbachev

Haha what is going on with all of these moves! I was in the midst of fixing it when I saw you moved to the best title, Attempted assassination of Mikhail Gorbachev. Please leave it there! And thanks for writing it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a problem because Attempted assassination of Mikhail Gorbachev was a redirect to a section on the 1990 October Revolution Parade article, so I couldn't create a new article with the same name. I created one with a temporary name so I could change the redirects, and for some reason it got really messy. Don't worry, that's the name I was aiming for. Thanks. Saitzken (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see—next time, you may just go to the page that's currently a redirect, delete the redirect syntax #REDIRECT [[Example]], and write your article right there, replacing the redirect. No moves needed! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Saitzken (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saitzken,

Please stop making multiple page moves, it is disruptive editing and that can be sanctioned with a block. There is no reason why you need to move an article more than once unless you make a mistake. Each time you move a page, it creates a page redirect that then needs to be dealt with so your page moves end up creating work for other editors. Think carefully and have a very good reason for moving a page and do so once. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of My Life (Bill Jefferson Clinton autobiography)

Hello, Saitzken,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username ClaudineChionh, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged My Life (Bill Jefferson Clinton autobiography) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|ClaudineChionh}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saitzken, I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but the article My Life (Clinton autobiography) exists. If you're not familiar with how redirects work, maybe don't fiddle with them or leave empty pages around for others to clean up. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of My Life (William Jefferson Clinton autobiography)

Hello, Saitzken,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username ClaudineChionh, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged My Life (William Jefferson Clinton autobiography) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|ClaudineChionh}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, but also noting that you removed talk page comments because you simply didn't like them. Saitzken (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a platform for casting wide aspersions, and that editor is prohibited from discussing anything related to the conflict on-wiki, so you were essentially baiting them into getting blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know they were banned, but it doesn't surprise me. Whenever someone comes along and tries to shake things up for the better, they are quickly shot down. I also didn't accuse anyone of being a fake, I simply brought up the fact that Israel has tried to push its propaganda narratives through Wikipedia, as have the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, and so on. Saitzken (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Bae Suzy, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were constructive and entirely in line with most sophisticated entries for foreign individuals. Your suggestion that it could be 'test editing' is offensive, lazy, and almost in violation of Wikipedia principles. Saitzken (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saitzken You didn't performed a "test editing", you performed a disruptive editing. You did a Bold edit, was Reverted and also informed that it's unnecessary, redundant, and duplicating the exact same information included via {{Infobox Korean name}} that resides in the same Infobox but chosen to ignored altogether and continued through multiple articles instead of Discuss. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were extremely constructive, and if you have any problem at all with native names supposedly being duplicated, you should take it up with the people who created all the other entries for foreign figures. You are not the custodian of these articles. Saitzken (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saitzken Yes, they were made with good faith but isn't constructive. Noticed the BOLD in the letter B, R, and D in my reply above which means you're required to follow WP:BRD "if you have any problem at all with native names" to not be included in precisely in South Korean BLPs articles and having duplicated information from {{Infobox Korean name}} in the Infobox of the same articles. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were constructive. You may disagree with them and that's fine, but to maintain consistency in your thinking you must also take issue with all the thousands of other entries for subjects from Korea, Japan, Russia and so on. Saitzken (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saitzken I understand you believe your edits were constructive, and it's fine to disagree. However, I did specifically refer to South Korean BLP articles where a dedicated Infobox module for native names exists for use in Korean topics, so adding |native_name= is neither consistent nor appropriate, as it's deliberately duplicating information in the Infobox. The purpose of an Infobox is to summarise information once, not multiple times. Regardless, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS apply here. I have made my point clearly based on guidelines and/or policies and will not entertain any further arguments that do not derive from them as it's unproductive. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits violated WP:CONSISTENT and WP:GOODFAITH. Saitzken (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saitzken Thank you for your reply. However, your reference to WP:CONSISTENT is misplaced, as that guideline redirects to WP:ARTICLETITLE and pertains specifically to article naming conventions, not content consistency. Regarding WP:GOODFAITH, I have never questioned your intent; my concern is with conduct, specifically that your multiple bold edits were reverted and you were informed accordingly, yet you continued making the same changes without discussion, which falls under WP:BRD and can be considered disruptive editing, specifically WP:IDHT. If you interpret being warned about disruptive editing as bad faith, then I believe there is a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia's process works. I will not engage in further debate as we appear to be going in circles. I have made my point based on guidelines and policies, and you have ceased adding duplicated information to infoboxes in South Korean BLP articles. However, should this conduct continue without evidence of consensus that the addition of duplicated information to infoboxes is allowed, your edits will be reverted and you will be warned accordingly. Thanks and regards, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both links are correct, and your earlier comment about sandboxes had dangerous implications and almost violated good faith assumptions. Saitzken (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frango à passarinho moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Frango à passarinho. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and in particular, the article needs at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was Brazilian. Saitzken (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I understand from the draft. But you need at least three sources with independent coverage to establish that it is a notable dish. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]