User talk:Calton/Archive26

Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event:

1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
5. Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions
6. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calton. 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 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, yes I've heard of it, just as I've heard of sarcasm. If you did a simple Google search of this you would find there is enough independent coverage to qualify this article. Tag it for needing more citations, but saying it may not meet notability guidelines is clearly wrong. Garchy (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cleanup at [1].

After some research efforts and work expanding the page, I'm taking a step back from editing it for a while.

Not sure what to make of these edit summaries and edits: [2] and [3].

Do those choice of words in those edit summaries seem appropriate to you? Might they display an underlying motivation?

Sagecandor (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, thanks for pointing that out, now I see the topic ban by NuclearWarfare. In light of the violations of WP:SYNTH and No Original Research [4] and then edit-warring to add back again the same violations, [5], might it be time for another WP:AE ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about this situation. However, please note that the reverts of mine you reported as violating 3RR did not, in fact, do so, as they were not made within a 24-hour period of each other, as that rule requires. I am very much aware of it and checked as to when I had reverted before doing so ... if I had thought I was even close to a third revert within 24 hours, I would not have reverted.

Please take more care to be aware of the rules you report people for violating next time you make such a report. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not take 3RR as an entitlement to revert 3 times within 24 hours and then stop, primarily because I did not revert three times within a 24-hour period. I made two reverts on 14 December, and two more on 18 December, yet you reported all four as if they had occurred in the same 24-hour period.

I know you may have reasons for questioning the sincerity of my apology, but please try not to voice them. I do recall that at one time you were a very helpful editor (albeit a little overzealous) in reporting suspect usernames, and as one of the admins who regularly worked that page at the time I did appreciate it, even if some other people had a few problems with your work. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DDE, reports to WP:3RR can and should only be made when someone has reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period. It says that pretty clearly (There is also a warning somewhere, although I can't find it right now, that editors should not be reported for two reverts on the grounds that they are trying not break the rule that otherwise they really want to). Don't confuse restatement of the rule, and editing within its terms, with attempting to game the system.

Your claim that bluntly restating what I did amounted to an invocation of 3RR as a right to revert is irrefutable evidence of failure to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I said that you were a helpful editor because I'm not actively involved in UAA anymore, and so I can't speak to whatever you've been doing lately since I haven't been keeping track. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Meguro Parasitological Museum, Calton!

Wikipedia editor Meatsgains just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Consider adding reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

To reply, leave a comment on Meatsgains's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

"Given your fundamental misunderstandings of some pretty basic concepts, I don't think you get the luxury of that smirk."

Who was that intended for? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the usual and customary meaning of WP:INDENTing (not to mention the context), the reply would seem to have been directed at the editor who smirked.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was prety sure I knew, but it came right after my reply, which made me think - bc the editor C and I are having difficulties with is more than a little passive-aggressive - a bit paranoidly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I should put in more marker words. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your post on Dicklyon's talkpage. Bit tough.

But more important, you live in Japan; I wonder whether you read/speak Japanese, and do you have any knowledge of jp.WP? I ask because the Signpost would really like to have a contact between it and a notoriously impenetrable WP version and community. We have never covered anything about that site, and it's one of our largest. Tony (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked when it is proper to delete another person's comment on Talk page on WP. My question was general, those who addressed it ignored the question, and it seems tried to attack the person who they think asked the question. 67.5.233.63 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I have removed the comment you added at User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. They are not allowed to reply, or to discuss the matter at all, so your engaging in it on their talk page is not helpful and might even serve to inflame. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This notice of the applicability of WP:AC/DS to discussions of article titles and the manual of style, "broadly construed", seems necessary. I don't care for its wording/tone (which sounds menacing instead of advisory), but WP:ARBCOM does not permit it to be modified. This is response to your "MOS is ... not a religious doctrine and ... people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith" comment at ANI, which is precisely the kind of personalization of a title/style dispute and histrionic and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy casting of WP:ASPERSIONS that were why discretionary sanctions were authorized to be applied to title/style discussions (in the WP:ARBATC case linked in the notice).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:James O'Keefe. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You slapped a suggested for deletion on an article I didn't move onto Main Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nkansahrexford#Proposed_deletion_of_Creo_Concepts

I'll urge you take a closer look at who to slap a suggestion for deletion on their profile before proceeding. Check the logs, and you'll know the right thing to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creo_Concepts&action=history

Because I started the article somewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm the author of the article on main wikipedia.

Geesh

Unigned comment by Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs) at 18:07, January 26, 2017‎

• (talk page stalker) Yes, it does. I'm not aware of any distinction between "Wikipedia" and "main wikipedia". The article history to which you link shows that you created the article — read it. Look at the earliest history entry, from 26 October 2016. Informing the creator of the article that it has been PRODDED, as Calton did, is simply a courtesy, to make you aware of it. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

And an automatic notification, at that. If that's not correct, then there's something wrong with the system or history. I'll go check, but if the article is in mainspace because someone moved it there from userspace/draftspace, then the history is also moved, so that's what the bot(?) looks for.

And what, pray tell, was "the right thing to do"? NOT notify you? --Calton | Talk 07:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you mention an editor at COIN, you must notify them. See the red box at the top of the page WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. - Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work in proposing spam articles for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New to Posting, please forgive errors. the page for louišP Ltd. received a request to delete from Calton. I feel your first review was correct due to the notable aspects of the referenced stories not being included. However, even though I did not create the article, I edited it just now to include the aspects of the articles which are notable in that 1. These people from over 20 countries teaming up to create and launch a website is a business development which has never been done 2. the interface coding allows a user to get to and from any city of the world faster and in fewer steps than any other website and without the need to type, this benefits everyone especially the handicap who need reduced steps on their interaction steps on line, 3. the interface coding allows the user to explore every single genre of entertainment within every city of the world without the need of typing and this is unlike any website 4. therefore this business development design as well as the interface coding are both unique and notable. Eliminating steps to a user's discovery of information is a notable creation of a design

<"iconoLand: Entertainment Events Around The Corner and The World!". qcostarica.com. 27 October 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"iconoLand.com ready to launch". thebftonline.com. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> < Danny, Diazion (7 September 2016). "The Spotlight on Ghana is About to Launch". patriarc.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"louisP Limited". hkgbusiness.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"Lanzan sitio web IconoLand con eventos y actividades de entretenimiento en todo el mundo". elfinancierocr.com. 26 October 2016. Retrieved 28 January 2017.> Briscoma (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my request, regarding your proper analysis of the page, which did not include the notable aspects of the articles which were sited. I do hope my edits to the article enable you to see the merit of this page's notability. Thanks you Briscoma (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, I stumbled upon this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Achom (2nd nomination). I don't really understand the process going on there. could you review it? Should the article be deleted or kept? Could you let other editors review it as well? It seems there are several issues with the article. I really don't know which side to take being new on this platform. Thanks Donchimee (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, while they contained arguments that might be relevant elsewhere, constitute a personal attack. While I am not unsympathetic to the ideas expressed therein, personal attacks are still expressly forbidden by policy. I strongly suggest you strike them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Collegesequoisseal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your sarcastic negative name-calling. It is unnecessary. Your proposed deletion of Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act is not a personal fight. Please don't take my challenge against your action as a challenge to YOU PERSONALLY. Please, it's only a Wikipedia article and I am trying to state an opposing argument. If the community deletes the article, so be it. If they keep it up, so be it. Please be respectful and civil to me, as I have been to you. I thanked you sincerely and non-sarcastically at the beginning of my comments. I will move my statement over to the articles for deletion page as you have asked me to do. Thank you. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am waiting for the final report, or at least an initial report, before putting it in an article that visible. I would also note the repeated warnings about revert wars on that page. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you should not have reinstated a challenged edit without talk page consensus, per active arbitration remedies. I have removed the content again and hereby invite you to discuss article improvement here. Politrukki (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.
• I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you.

2001:E68:5400:2FB4:2DFE:C7CE:735D:B00B (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove everything from User:MattWorks? User talk:MattWorks 10:09, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

DNFTT - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bugmenot123123123.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I did attempt to put that mention in the main MH17 page but after a heated discussion with users like User:Ahunt an agreement that it shall be placed in "International Reactions" instead. Can you read carefully tthe last part of [[6]] where a snowball consuensus is there? Mamasanju (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Oh since the silly edit war is ongoing, here's this: Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mamasanju (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Google Juice [edit] Calton, I'm sure this sounds naive, but how does posting some random stuff on a userpage, like IOption500 did, get them "Google Juice"? I come across it sometimes, and generally delete those pages per U5, but I wish I could see the point of them. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply] For a clearer clarification, here's the excerpt [edit] User:Calton In reality I added that Lord Vader mention into the MH17 main page FIRST but Ahunt removed it then I proceeded to start a discussion which ended up with a consensus on getting it to INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS instead. Here's the excerpt so shall you read? EXCERPT [edit] This is a extract from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The comments contained were not made on this user talk page. Yesterday I found these articles that reported a hacking incident that arose from this airliner shootdown: http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/teen-cyber-anakin-hacker-wants-revenge-on-russia-after-the-mh17-crash/news-story/bb2eecdc37c54f2b5b3800dd26ef4caf http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash I briefly discussed with User:Martinevans123 and reached a basic consensus to add some skeptical tones into the edit since there's few sources. However, after both edit and my chat with Martinevans was removed altogether by User:Ahunt, a new question popped up. Is it relevant to include this edit as a footnote and put some skeptical tones into it per my consensus with Martinevans? The only problem here is we found the event way too late. This is a borderline case since the notability and even relevancy of this cybersecurity event is up for debate. IMO adding skeptical tone into the edit is more better than removing it altogether, at least we can avoid WP:UNDUE or WP:BIAS accusations. 60.54.37.77 (talk) User:Mamasanju 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have an idea to add the skeptical tones into the edit per my consensus with Martin to maintain both WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT: On early 2016 both news outlets VICE Motherboard and news.com.au reported that a teenage hacker calling himself "Cyber Anakin" has hacked into several Russian websites in attempt to "avenge" the airliner shootdown. This is 60.54.37.77 using a different IP since I'm using school PC right now. On an unrelated note, just now I remembered my WP account. 113.210.177.40 (talk) User:Mamasanju 02:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] On User:Martinevans123 concerns that no mainstream/conventional media has covered the hacking, I googled and found that news.com.au has diffused the news report into some of the newspapers they own: Report from The Advertiser (Adelaide) Report from The Mercury (Hobart) Report from The Courier-Mail Report from The Daily Telegraph (Australia) Keep in mind that news.com.au is actually owned by Australian media giant News Corp Australia, so in this way the news just went into mainstream/conventional media, albeit on a smaller scale and is more like "mirroring". Mamasanju (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] The knowledge of the event even spreaded far enough to the editors at Politico and Wired (magazine). 1 2 Mamasanju (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Chinese security company Qihoo 360 has picked up the news, an indication that the story has received a widespread attention in 2016: News (Chinese Language) With such a widespread attention I don't see why we should neglect or refuse to mention this fact even as a footnote. Mamasanju (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I agree. At some point in the past, the incident had an entire separate section in the article. That is clearly excessive. But a one-sentence mention or a footnote seems appropriate to me. Incidentally, I think one or two people may be confusing the requirements for notability, which on Wikipedia means being sufficiently well covered by reliable sources to merit an entire separate article, and the much lesser requirements for merely being mentioned in another article. This incident does not need to be independently notable in order to be mentioned in this article. MPS1992 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I don't think this is really a consequential story in the scheme of things. Google News Search shows the only sources are a handful of publications (around 5 when you count News Corp as a single source under WP:NEWSORG rules). Most events relating to MH17 generate hundreds of articles per event, but this event only generated 5. It just shows that it's trivial in the long run. Stickee (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] For example, I'll compare it to a MH17 story that was actually non-trivial. When a story is worthy of inclusion, news agencies report on it. So I'll compare which of the major news agencies reported on the two stories: Agency MH17 Oxygen mask story Cyber Anakin story Associated Press Yes[7] No Agence France-Presse Yes[8] No Reuters Yes[9] No Australian Associated Press Yes[10] No APN News & Media Yes[11] No Indo-Asian News Service Yes[12] No Bloomberg News agency Yes[13] No Asian News International Yes[14] No BNO News Yes[15] No United Press International Yes[16] No Xinhua News Agency Yes[17] No Evidently not worthy of inclusion. (News Corp could be counted as half an agency, but even with that it's hardly anything in comparison). Stickee (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] 5? Sounds appropriate for a footnote mention for me, though a separate section is not needed and the tone of the wording has to be adjusted. Per MPS1992, please do note that the criteria to include it as a footnote mention and the criteria to make an standalone article about the hack are two different things, with the former more lenient than the latter, so it'll be unwise to conflate the two together as it'll be like comparing apples to oranges. Mamasanju (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] If the edit is about how MH17 was shot down, whether the oxygen masks are on or who fired the missile, then I'll accept Stickee's criteria. But the edit is trying to present the aftereffects from this incident. Mamasanju (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] In essential in here we're dealing with the reaction to the tragedy, not how the tragedy happened. If the Cyber Anakin hackings do fit Stickee's criteria, I would not ask for the tone to be adjusted to a more ambigious one (e.g. the addition of the word "reportedly") at the first place. Mamasanju (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I just remembered one thing. Data breaches in the magnitude of millions or higher in terms of affected users are considered quite consequential and remarkable in terms of impact in the cyber-security sector. If the breach only affect hundreds, I could accept Stickee's explanation and withdraw my edit proposal. But this hacking incident affected millions. Mamasanju (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Here's some case studies that mentioned the hacking event, an indication that the said cybersecurity breach could have lasting significance per WP:PERSISTENCE 1 2 (Chinese) 3 (Czech) 4. Mamasanju (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] More case studies 1 2 Mamasanju (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] How do we know "this hacking incident affected millions"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I forgot to mention that according to the said coverages, computer security researcher Troy Hunt has verified that the breach is legit. He even gave out exact numbers of affected users in his Have I Been Pwned? website. Mamasanju (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] According to Troy Hunt's breach notification service 1476783 KM.RU users/accounts were affected while 1535473 NIVAL users/accounts were affected. Mamasanju (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] 1000000 = 1 million Mamasanju (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] After reviewing it all I removed it because I didn't think it was very relevant to this article. Sure some guy attempted a hack and claimed it was in retribution for the shoot down, but the hack was ineffective and he could have claimed it was for Russian support of Assad in Syria, the Russian invasion of Crimea or any other so-called "cause". It didn't further this story at all. The fact that no real mainstream media ran the story shows it just isn't all that notable. In comparison, if one person mounts a protest outside a Russian embassy, in say Lima, Peru, about MH17, are we going to add it to the article, because this was pretty much the same level of incident. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I think I have addressed the issues of mainstream/conventional media on here so I'm not going to repeat it again since this issue is more like an opinion issue. There's a major difference between unauthorized intrusion of databases and simply protesting outside Russian embassy presumably with peaceful means. The former is very illegal in most countries and can get him charged with cybercrime law. This kind of distinction do matter. Wikipedia is not a Super Mario Bros, it is a never ending project. Who knows if KM.RU or Nival made some statements about this in the near future? Who knows if that "Lord Vader" get arrested or even assasinated because of the hack that affected millions? For now I stick through my proposal that a skeptical tone is to be added into the edit before making it live. Mamasanju (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have come out with a much better analogy based on Ahunt's. The Cyber Anakin incident is more similar to a scenario where the person use violent means to protest against a Russian embassy (e.g. window smashing, paint-throwing). On the latter case it might be enough to get included into List of attacks on diplomatic missions. They both are illegal. Mamasanju (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I think that is a useful analogy. I also think that if someone threw paint or broke a window at a Russian embassy we wouldn't put it in here, just too minor and not relevant to the actual shoot-down. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] If Cyber Anakin threw paints and broke windows of a Russian embassy instead of leaking out private login informations of millions of internet users and tied his motive to this tragedy I might write this in that parallel universe: Media outlets (media outlet 1) and (media outlet 2) reported that the Russian embassy was vandalized by a protestor calling himself "Cyber Anakin", allegedly in response to this tragedy. Mamasanju (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] In that "alternate reality" I could have put the edit into International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown since the media would obviously reveal the location of that particular Russian embassy that was being vandalized. Mamasanju (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Have to agree with User:Ahunt it is not relevant to the incident and should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I can't see why it is "irrelevant" considering that Cyber Anakin's stated motive is centered around this tragedy. I think I have mentioned how the event fits WP:PERSISTENCE here before. Mamasanju (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] This is not an article about everybody who uses the accident as an excuse to do some sort of action or protest, he was not the only one to blame the accident for his actions they were many more all of which has no relevance to the accident. Did his activities cause or influence the incident, the answer appears to be no. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Lemme get it straight. The MH17 tragedy influenced the hacker to commit the hacking incident, not the other way around. In this sense, the Cyber Anakin early 2016 hackings could be seen as an extension or aftereffects of MH17. I could be inclined to buy your explanation that he was not the only one to blame the tragedy for his hacktivist acts if the numbers of affected users were just hundreds instead of millions. I could have simply said that Some news outlets have reported numerous computer hacking incidents allegedly to "avenge" this tragedy if there are two or more hacktivist incidents that tied their motives to the "avenging" of this plane crash instead of one. Mamasanju (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] This hacking incident is between the circle "MH17" and the circle "computer security" in a Venn diagram so I've asked for a comment from a user who is in cybersecurity Wikiproject. Mamasanju (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] If you think it is notable as a hacking incident then you are welcome to create a new article but it has no place here unless they hacked the aircraft systems, Air Traffic Control or the Missile Control stuff which doesnt appear to be likely. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Article? I think the entry would be nominated for removal as soon as it was created since it hadn't fulfill all of the five WP:EVENTCRITERIA yet, in fact it had only met one to two. However, I begin pondering to put the edit into the international reactions page after I considered the embassy analogy. The event itself is notable imo, but it's notability can only get it a footnote mention at the very mininum. Mamasanju (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have to agree with User:MilborneOne, it is at best an "after the event" attempt to tie into this shoot-down. It has very little to do with this story to the point where I just don't think it is worth including here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have considered the embassy analogy and I'm pondering to put it into International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown. Since as you said, it is at best an "after the event" attempt to tie into this shootdown, I remain adamant that a skeptical and ambigious tone should be added into the edit. At least we don't have to throw the water along with the baby. Mamasanju (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Although I have put up a draft edit on the international reactions page, imo the hacking incident, especially its motives, is connected to the tragedy whether the link is factual or alleged. This is what makes it relevant to include it in either this page or in the international reactions page, albeit as a footnote. Mamasanju (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I would definitely support it going in International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown as a short note. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yep, at least we got a common ground :) Hope that the rest of the participants of this talk are informed of our newfound consensus. Mamasanju (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Agree. Better placed there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I agree with those who say that the incident is too insignificant (both the act and coverage) to be included here. I would have no strong feelings about inclusion in 'reactions', even there I believe our coverage should be very brief. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Per User:MPS1992 the mention should consist in one sentence, although the ambigious and skeptical tone has to be retained in the edit on the reactions page. Mamasanju (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]