User talk:PaladinOfDaedalus

Template:Infobox Neighborhood Louisville KY has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Jiwhit01. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jiwhit01. 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

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, Jiwhit01. 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

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]

Thanks for your contributions to

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what happened to my revision. I published (a draft) but was still working on it, I spent quite a bit of time adding in sources and a great deal more information which is all missing now. Is there a way to get that version back?! I don't see it in the version history. If you moved it while I was working on it, is there a place where the version went that I saved?

talk) 06:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviram,

Not sure what you are talking about as far as "non-free sources" the 2 primary sources cited are 2 US federal government press releases, which are both free and available for public use. I'm working on obtaining other sources for an other wise "top secret" and "sensitive materials' government operation, so primary sources are going to be scarce.

I'm going to remove the tag, if you have an explanation for the tag, feel free to write me back and please add to the talk page of the main page so other people can benefit from this discussion.

talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I did a Move page for Operation Blacklist -> Operation Blackwrist. A trial transcript had the word mis-transcribed.

However, Operation Dark Huntor was created de-novo. There is a section I copied and pasted between two government operations that had identical information, but I'm not sure how any of what was copied would have created an issue, I don't think there was any active texts. Can you identify the section that I created an issue so I can inspect it?

talk) 04:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm reviewing my edits, I did copy the page deficiencies in the TALK page from

talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth
  (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent
  of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nationwide Investigation Advisory Committee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:,

This "secret" committee doesn't have a landing page anywhere on the internet. There isn't a news organization that has tackled it yet, and there isn't a watch dog organization that has taken it to task or under-observation. The only knowledge of it's existence are in court documents. This single committee is responsible for ALL boiler plate affidavits across the United States by the FBI or the HSI to get search warrants of peoples homes and other property. This article rates as High or probably TOP [important] on the importance scale for Wiki articles in the Wikiproject law enforcement and wiki project law.

If you are going to turn down my draft, I would appreciate you not just use a boilerplate to discount it, as to the 4 qualities believed to be deficient. I request that you discuss it's deficiencies on the talk page as to the four subjects:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

for reliability and at least low quality depth I think that a federal prosecutor describing the committee and how it works in a court document sufficient.

as for the sources being primary or secondary, that is always an issue that receives a lower bar for any information related to government operations where the government has routinely attempted to keep the information secret. This committee, it's members, and their specific responsibilities, powers, etc. are all at this time not disclosed, FOIAable nor able to obtained by inspection or observation.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider, or in the alternative, provide a detailed explanation of why you declined to allow the page's creation as well as what you further expect to be done before the page can be created.

talk) 19:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Jiwhit01! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Brazilian Federal Police operations, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Operation Torpedo. 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) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

What I did is I noticed that the citation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ned.62281/gov.uscourts.ned.62281.50.0.pdf is in the public domain, so I added a template {{source-attribution}} as part of the citation so that the reader is made aware that the prose was copied from there, and not written by a Wikipedian. I added a reference notation after each segment of the article that was copied from that source. Check my edit. — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

In fact, you should remove every name on that page that does not have a secondary reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPPRIMARY

is indicating that you can't use court documents as a primary source for things the court system has done to a person, or issued, such as a judgement or arrest or other event. There is a vast amount of information that is generated in court documents which are unacceptable to use as a primary source about a person, but that is different that describing the judiciary procedures. An court record about the arrest of a person is certainly adequate to create a reference to the arrest of the person for example, as is a judgement, appeal, release, and statistics about the case. These aren't really facts about the person, as much as they are facts about the operation and the prosecution that followed.

see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 29 for discussion on the topic

Therefore, I firmly disagree with your interpretation of the

talk) 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've opened a discussion at BLPN to see what the consensus is on this interpretation (link). Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about

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 special powers 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 practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd

The rules that are broadly applied to keep from doxing an individual beyond what is necessary when precedential law has occurred is to not publish personal identifiable information. Things like, street address, birthdate, social security number, names of other family members, friends or witnesses, email addresses, business name or address, bank records etc. An example is the famous Roe v. Wade, in which the name of the woman that is named in the suit is known, however, it would not have been prudent to publish other identifiable information that could aid those that would have harassed her. These are rules that are in line with both the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure which governs the Judiciary, and the privacy act which governs the executive branch and much of the private sector.

talk) 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I merely notified you about the area of

policies and guidelines for wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I found, on the page that you cited the

WP:BLPPRIMARY

the sections addressing privacy protection. Please see

• WP:BLPPRIVACY
• WP:DOB

Both of which mirror most existing federal and judicial privacy related laws/rules in the U.S. and likely other developed democracies.

talk) 22:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for creating Operation Blackwrist.

It would be great to integrate this into Wikipedia by linking it from elsewhere.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:

Very excited for to get additional editors attention to this page. Do you have some suggestions as to how to incorporate links from other pages?

Also, if you wouldn't mind looking in on

Operation Pacifier from Playpen (website)

.

I'm wanting to do a project to create a standard info box for these Multinational Law Enforcement Operations as well as a standard writing template of for the articles. I'm not sure how to gather people in a project for that type of consensus work.

I've already started the infobox templating process here

User:PaladinOfDaedalus/Infobox_law_enforcement_operations

eximo (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)@[reply]

To link it from elsewhere, think about topics that might benefit from this operation as an example: perhaps of international coorperation, or the international scope of child abuse. Getting others involved is quite difficult, as there are so many frontiers in Wikipedia. Starting a discussion on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects can sometimes help; perhaps

SPLIT

if the page got too big (around 50-100k of readable prose, of if the page was unbalanced). I'll see if I can find some time to look at the other operations.

Hello, PaladinOfDaedalus. Thank you for your work on

Thanks for putting this together. It serves a purpose for oversight/transparency, and I agree that its best separate from Federal Police of Brazil.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PaladinOfDaedalus. Thank you for your work on

Another editor has commented noted that it needs more indepedent references. All of the references so far are from organizations involved with the opertation, so could be seen as having a biased point of view. So, some independent sources; news articles covering the topic; journal articles would be even better.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain

Very much agree, at the moment, most of the information pertaining to the "secret" operation is provided only by the goverment(s). But I understand the need for secondary sources. eximo (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

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. Викидим (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Викидим It's a translation of the German language page, I can go back and finish adding in the references if that is sufficient. eximo (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. I have assumed that the article was finished, with just one source that mentions it. This is generally considered not enough for

WP:GNG), so I have decided to move it to Drafts, where it can accumulate more sources. Sorry if I disturbed your workflow; you can prevent it in the future by simply tagging your article with {{Under construction}}. Викидим (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Викидим

I appreciate keeping up a good defense against unnecessary page creation. Keep up the good work.

I'm adding some additional sources in now, but the move to draft space broke the English wikipedia linkage to the german wikipedia. I'm not sure how to manually add it back since the german wikipedia thinks they are still linked. I've only added from the german or portugues side, and not the english side for the linkage. Any help? eximo (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the problem to take care of itself once the article is back in the mainspace. Викидим (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz

I understand the category is blank. It's a complimentary page to the german page at the moment. The german page will have at least 10 pages once I'm done finding all of the german operations, then I'll port them over. it might take a few days though. eximo (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PaladinOfDaedalus. Thank you for your work on

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawnThank you so much! Keep doing what you do, and I'll keep doing what I do, and the world will become more enlightened! eximo (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]