![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
I'm confused about your comment here. What are you saying did not happen in Crimea? Did you read the three sources that I supplied? LokiiT ( talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not take comments like " You have been warned repeatedly about edit warring. Stop it." so you can spoil Wikipedia with one sided propaganda. It's clearly you who got out of line here. And I'm glad another user deleted you're POV. -- Wester ( talk) 12:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Ok, tanks. USchick ( talk) 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I moved your answer to the split on Talk:Crimea 'cuz I linked the wrong link. The split discussion is at the "Split proposal" (which is what you were supporting) while "Requested move" is discussing wether we should rename the article. Sorry for the mistake! Hope this clears things up. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the
"thanks"!
— |
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh
Buzzard| — 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your "Gestapo" comment is wholly unacceptable, and further comments along these lines will result in a block.
The Bushranger
One ping only 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"Atlantictire, fighting battles is a very noble cause. If you wish to do that, first, you have to stay alive. Hope to see you around." Cheers. Noteswork ( talk) 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
But to me the Slate article you quoted in talk:Ukraine is not helpful or relevant at all in improving the article. While the Slate may be correct in the history of cartographic wars, it has nothing to do with NatGeo's policy on cartography, unless you have solid evidence to prove that Kremlin has paid NatGeo for the alternation. Attempting to link NatGeo's change of Crimean Peninsula shade with historical cartographic wars is a blatant fallacy. The map is only created after the fact, it doesn't help establish the fact before it happens. Just so you know, I don't either sympathize Ukraine or support Russian's military actions. At least I never hold any of such sentiment while editing Wikipedia. I hope you do too. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello USchick, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently an ANI thread that may concern you [6]. Regards -- Director ( talk) 20:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thought you might be interested that if you put quotes around the search you get a more meaningful number of hits - 1. Also be aware that Google lies about the number of hits, often vastly inflating it. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Hello USchick,
WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 56456 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click
here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click
here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit
Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!
Hi USChick. Thank you so much for your help on the kulich/paska/cheese/art issues I was trying to grasp. I learned a lot and your input and assistance was very helpful. Thank you very much. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Откажитесь с этим человеком. Он никогда не изменится, и это просто потеря времени.-- Silvio1973 ( talk) 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't really argue with the logic of what you're proposing. After all, it has been determined (and indeed admitted) that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Obviously that didn't happen by itself. Somebody did it, and the person who did that ought to be topic-banned. Depending upon the circumstances, any abettors too should get the same punishment. But what you're proposing seems at first blush to be a rehash of arguments previously made in previous ANIs. Not sure about the timing either, but maybe you're right that it should happen now, while the article and its edit history and talk page are still alive. However, I think it would be better if you used that article history and the new evidence to show more directly what happened and who did it. Just a suggestion. To be frank, though I think that article is monstrous and I was appalled by the editor behavior that I saw (which included threats against me), I would personally find it hard to support a topic ban without seeing evidence specifically of what happened and who did what. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't a distracting comment. On the contrary, it cuts to the heart of the problem. See my talk page for an explanation.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 04:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh I don't know. When more eyes came to the article, look how fast things turned around. I'm actually quite pleased by the (apparent) outcome. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I apologize because my earlier comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was not clear enough. I will try to summarize our positions with the table:
Number and question | Antidiskriminator | USchick |
---|---|---|
1 - Who (should discuss) | All editors | Only editors involved in the dispute about the topics Jews and Communism |
2 - What | All tag-teaming actions | Only in the topics Jews and Communism |
3 - Ban to | All members of the team | Only to two members who (allegedly?) tag-teamed at topics about Jews and Communism |
4 - From what | Only from specific topic areas | From all articles on Jews and Communism |
I respect your position, but I wanted to present you my position in comparison to yours and to propose you to reconsider your position, or at least some of the above points.
I doubt that it will be possible for involved editors to ban two editors in question from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on their actions at single contentious article. On the other hand, I still think that wide consensus of all interested editors about tag-teaming actions of all members of the team in more than one article, would allow uninvolved administrator to impose more appropriate topic bans to the team members. I apologize if I made some mistake in interpretation of your position. All the best.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that one really hurt, Chick :). You wouldn't say King's Landing was being filmed in the "Communist Bloc", would you? -- Director ( talk) 22:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Jewish Barnstar | |
Dear USchick, you contributed tirelessly in so many ways to fight for a WP:NPOV in the now-discredited "Jews & Communism" article and you were never fooled by the underlying negative motives of the pseudo-scholarship it tried to sneak onto Wikipedia. But your sensitivity to how this relates to and impacts Jews and the harm it can and does cause was also very evident all along. Your strong common sense with a sound knowledge base and a willingness to give others the benefit of the doubt, even though you disagreed with them, is something that you can be truly proud of. Keep on going strong, Wikipedia and the world needs you! Yours sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 10:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
I don't mean to sound mean in any way, but I think that if we are not very careful with how we act and how we go about doing this, we will come off as a giant tag team.. we would need users who know how to control themselves and lack assertion and attachment to specific feuds. I really would like to do this with you, Snow Rise, Coretheapple and the likes, but as I said on the Jews and communism page, I have a vision of this whole group spiralling into another mass conflict if we do not control ourselves. A lot of people on the talk page seem to have been greatly offended by the mere existence of "Jews and Communism", and frankly, by the existence of Director - and when you're talking about specializing in dealing with offensive, discriminatory content on Wikipedia constantly, I don't think someone who is easily attached would be the right fit to work with. So, before I go joining anything, I would like to ask who is in the group - and where are we starting? :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear USchick, as you know in the past I experienced some difficulties dealing with User:Director. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And who knows may be I am the guilty one.
I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is a very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certified the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.
I requested to an experience user and looking for people to certify/endorse an RfC/u is not canvassing.
You can access to the RfC/U form at [ [7]] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Let me know if you are intending to participate.
The fact is that what annoys me is his general conduct. What happened on Dalmatia is perhaps not enough but put all together during the last year it's a lot. Silvio1973 ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Good morning, three users have already signed in. -- Silvio1973 ( talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
This user is not an AN/I Monster and won't take you to AN/I for something redonkulous. |
You can has. ;-)-- Atlantictire ( talk) 19:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Do you know Ukrainian (or Russian)? I'm not perfect know English, that's why I may better explain to you about campain of boycott and editing of this page on Ukrainian or Russian. Thanks!-- Trydence ( talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Наверное, перевод "commerce" наиболее точен и лаконичен для преамбулы. Но все же поясню, в чем заключается бойкот. Возможно вы сможете подобрать более корректные формулировки для статьи.
Следует сказать, что основной акцент идет на том, получают ли российские компании, владельцы прибыль из Украины от украинских потребителей. Так как эти деньги потом в виде налогов идут в российскую экономику и, соответственно, на финансирование российской армии и террористов. Тем не менее, бойкот имеет политическую цель, а не экономическую, поэтому активисты не призывают к бойкоту на государственном уровне.
Спасибо, что помогаете улучшать статью! Будут вопросы, обращайтесь!-- Trydence ( talk) 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Приветствую! Переведите пожалуйста предложения для статьи: "В январе-мае 2014 года по данным агентства Standard & Poor's Ratings Services банки с российским капиталом в Украине утратили более 50% депозитов." Російські банки втратили більше 50% вкладів в Україні -- Trydence ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Приветствую! На статью Do not buy Russian goods! поставили шаблон NPoV. Из того, что предоставили - вижу, что безосновательно, по надуманным причинам. По крайней мере в правилах Английской Википедии не нашел нарушений по статье. Как вы думаете?-- Trydence ( talk) 12:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This page may be of help. Wikipedia:In the news. Capitalistroadster ( talk) 02:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
File:UnknownTemple1.jpg Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat Woramahawihan (วัดพระศรีรัตนมหาธาตุวรมหาวิหาร), the main temple of Phitsanulok.
The article Monstration has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
CaptRik (
talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temple ring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangles. 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) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I consider your remark here
[15] to be slander obvious misrepresentation. It's not especially nasty slander, but you need to make sure that you understand what's being said before you make a personal attack out of it. You obviously don't, and would be unlikely to convince others of your misinterpretation at a noticeboard. This is your warning per WP:NPA, and depending on what follows (given your crude partisanship there) it may be the only warning I give before reporting you
Geogene (
talk) 15:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC) This is not a legal threat.
Geogene (
talk) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (consult) @ 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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 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 message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.RGloucester — ☎ 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Really, after the last mess you created by moving other people's comments around and altering discussion titles, you really shouldn't be *still* trying to rearrange other people's comments, like you did here [21]. Just leave other people's comments alone. They can move them themselves if they so wish. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Courtesy note that with this edit I moved your sig to the end of your comment. Otherwise it looked like the quote block was my comment. I hope that's not a problem, but if it is you can fix it up. Stickee (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at your user page and saw your ANI monster user box and I thought it was great. I then looked at the source and noticed that you made it yourself and I not only think that is really cool but I'm not sure if you know how, I know I don't, but I think you should make that into a user box. It's just an observation because I feel like that is something that many users would like on their user page. If you decide not to it's fine but I just wanted to suggest it because it's a really cool user box. - SantiLak ( talk) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your past help. I won't be contributing to Wikipedia again, but if there are other ways I can be of use to you, feel free to let me know. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Useful. [22] SaintAviator lets talk 07:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
I'm confused about your comment here. What are you saying did not happen in Crimea? Did you read the three sources that I supplied? LokiiT ( talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not take comments like " You have been warned repeatedly about edit warring. Stop it." so you can spoil Wikipedia with one sided propaganda. It's clearly you who got out of line here. And I'm glad another user deleted you're POV. -- Wester ( talk) 12:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Ok, tanks. USchick ( talk) 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I moved your answer to the split on Talk:Crimea 'cuz I linked the wrong link. The split discussion is at the "Split proposal" (which is what you were supporting) while "Requested move" is discussing wether we should rename the article. Sorry for the mistake! Hope this clears things up. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the
"thanks"!
— |
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh
Buzzard| — 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your "Gestapo" comment is wholly unacceptable, and further comments along these lines will result in a block.
The Bushranger
One ping only 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"Atlantictire, fighting battles is a very noble cause. If you wish to do that, first, you have to stay alive. Hope to see you around." Cheers. Noteswork ( talk) 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
But to me the Slate article you quoted in talk:Ukraine is not helpful or relevant at all in improving the article. While the Slate may be correct in the history of cartographic wars, it has nothing to do with NatGeo's policy on cartography, unless you have solid evidence to prove that Kremlin has paid NatGeo for the alternation. Attempting to link NatGeo's change of Crimean Peninsula shade with historical cartographic wars is a blatant fallacy. The map is only created after the fact, it doesn't help establish the fact before it happens. Just so you know, I don't either sympathize Ukraine or support Russian's military actions. At least I never hold any of such sentiment while editing Wikipedia. I hope you do too. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello USchick, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently an ANI thread that may concern you [6]. Regards -- Director ( talk) 20:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thought you might be interested that if you put quotes around the search you get a more meaningful number of hits - 1. Also be aware that Google lies about the number of hits, often vastly inflating it. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Hello USchick,
WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 56456 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click
here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click
here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit
Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!
Hi USChick. Thank you so much for your help on the kulich/paska/cheese/art issues I was trying to grasp. I learned a lot and your input and assistance was very helpful. Thank you very much. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Откажитесь с этим человеком. Он никогда не изменится, и это просто потеря времени.-- Silvio1973 ( talk) 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't really argue with the logic of what you're proposing. After all, it has been determined (and indeed admitted) that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Obviously that didn't happen by itself. Somebody did it, and the person who did that ought to be topic-banned. Depending upon the circumstances, any abettors too should get the same punishment. But what you're proposing seems at first blush to be a rehash of arguments previously made in previous ANIs. Not sure about the timing either, but maybe you're right that it should happen now, while the article and its edit history and talk page are still alive. However, I think it would be better if you used that article history and the new evidence to show more directly what happened and who did it. Just a suggestion. To be frank, though I think that article is monstrous and I was appalled by the editor behavior that I saw (which included threats against me), I would personally find it hard to support a topic ban without seeing evidence specifically of what happened and who did what. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't a distracting comment. On the contrary, it cuts to the heart of the problem. See my talk page for an explanation.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 04:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh I don't know. When more eyes came to the article, look how fast things turned around. I'm actually quite pleased by the (apparent) outcome. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I apologize because my earlier comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was not clear enough. I will try to summarize our positions with the table:
Number and question | Antidiskriminator | USchick |
---|---|---|
1 - Who (should discuss) | All editors | Only editors involved in the dispute about the topics Jews and Communism |
2 - What | All tag-teaming actions | Only in the topics Jews and Communism |
3 - Ban to | All members of the team | Only to two members who (allegedly?) tag-teamed at topics about Jews and Communism |
4 - From what | Only from specific topic areas | From all articles on Jews and Communism |
I respect your position, but I wanted to present you my position in comparison to yours and to propose you to reconsider your position, or at least some of the above points.
I doubt that it will be possible for involved editors to ban two editors in question from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on their actions at single contentious article. On the other hand, I still think that wide consensus of all interested editors about tag-teaming actions of all members of the team in more than one article, would allow uninvolved administrator to impose more appropriate topic bans to the team members. I apologize if I made some mistake in interpretation of your position. All the best.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that one really hurt, Chick :). You wouldn't say King's Landing was being filmed in the "Communist Bloc", would you? -- Director ( talk) 22:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Jewish Barnstar | |
Dear USchick, you contributed tirelessly in so many ways to fight for a WP:NPOV in the now-discredited "Jews & Communism" article and you were never fooled by the underlying negative motives of the pseudo-scholarship it tried to sneak onto Wikipedia. But your sensitivity to how this relates to and impacts Jews and the harm it can and does cause was also very evident all along. Your strong common sense with a sound knowledge base and a willingness to give others the benefit of the doubt, even though you disagreed with them, is something that you can be truly proud of. Keep on going strong, Wikipedia and the world needs you! Yours sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 10:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
I don't mean to sound mean in any way, but I think that if we are not very careful with how we act and how we go about doing this, we will come off as a giant tag team.. we would need users who know how to control themselves and lack assertion and attachment to specific feuds. I really would like to do this with you, Snow Rise, Coretheapple and the likes, but as I said on the Jews and communism page, I have a vision of this whole group spiralling into another mass conflict if we do not control ourselves. A lot of people on the talk page seem to have been greatly offended by the mere existence of "Jews and Communism", and frankly, by the existence of Director - and when you're talking about specializing in dealing with offensive, discriminatory content on Wikipedia constantly, I don't think someone who is easily attached would be the right fit to work with. So, before I go joining anything, I would like to ask who is in the group - and where are we starting? :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear USchick, as you know in the past I experienced some difficulties dealing with User:Director. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And who knows may be I am the guilty one.
I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is a very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certified the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.
I requested to an experience user and looking for people to certify/endorse an RfC/u is not canvassing.
You can access to the RfC/U form at [ [7]] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Let me know if you are intending to participate.
The fact is that what annoys me is his general conduct. What happened on Dalmatia is perhaps not enough but put all together during the last year it's a lot. Silvio1973 ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Good morning, three users have already signed in. -- Silvio1973 ( talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
This user is not an AN/I Monster and won't take you to AN/I for something redonkulous. |
You can has. ;-)-- Atlantictire ( talk) 19:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Do you know Ukrainian (or Russian)? I'm not perfect know English, that's why I may better explain to you about campain of boycott and editing of this page on Ukrainian or Russian. Thanks!-- Trydence ( talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Наверное, перевод "commerce" наиболее точен и лаконичен для преамбулы. Но все же поясню, в чем заключается бойкот. Возможно вы сможете подобрать более корректные формулировки для статьи.
Следует сказать, что основной акцент идет на том, получают ли российские компании, владельцы прибыль из Украины от украинских потребителей. Так как эти деньги потом в виде налогов идут в российскую экономику и, соответственно, на финансирование российской армии и террористов. Тем не менее, бойкот имеет политическую цель, а не экономическую, поэтому активисты не призывают к бойкоту на государственном уровне.
Спасибо, что помогаете улучшать статью! Будут вопросы, обращайтесь!-- Trydence ( talk) 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Приветствую! Переведите пожалуйста предложения для статьи: "В январе-мае 2014 года по данным агентства Standard & Poor's Ratings Services банки с российским капиталом в Украине утратили более 50% депозитов." Російські банки втратили більше 50% вкладів в Україні -- Trydence ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Приветствую! На статью Do not buy Russian goods! поставили шаблон NPoV. Из того, что предоставили - вижу, что безосновательно, по надуманным причинам. По крайней мере в правилах Английской Википедии не нашел нарушений по статье. Как вы думаете?-- Trydence ( talk) 12:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This page may be of help. Wikipedia:In the news. Capitalistroadster ( talk) 02:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
File:UnknownTemple1.jpg Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat Woramahawihan (วัดพระศรีรัตนมหาธาตุวรมหาวิหาร), the main temple of Phitsanulok.
The article Monstration has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
CaptRik (
talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temple ring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangles. 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) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I consider your remark here
[15] to be slander obvious misrepresentation. It's not especially nasty slander, but you need to make sure that you understand what's being said before you make a personal attack out of it. You obviously don't, and would be unlikely to convince others of your misinterpretation at a noticeboard. This is your warning per WP:NPA, and depending on what follows (given your crude partisanship there) it may be the only warning I give before reporting you
Geogene (
talk) 15:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC) This is not a legal threat.
Geogene (
talk) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (consult) @ 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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 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 message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.RGloucester — ☎ 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Really, after the last mess you created by moving other people's comments around and altering discussion titles, you really shouldn't be *still* trying to rearrange other people's comments, like you did here [21]. Just leave other people's comments alone. They can move them themselves if they so wish. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Courtesy note that with this edit I moved your sig to the end of your comment. Otherwise it looked like the quote block was my comment. I hope that's not a problem, but if it is you can fix it up. Stickee (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at your user page and saw your ANI monster user box and I thought it was great. I then looked at the source and noticed that you made it yourself and I not only think that is really cool but I'm not sure if you know how, I know I don't, but I think you should make that into a user box. It's just an observation because I feel like that is something that many users would like on their user page. If you decide not to it's fine but I just wanted to suggest it because it's a really cool user box. - SantiLak ( talk) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your past help. I won't be contributing to Wikipedia again, but if there are other ways I can be of use to you, feel free to let me know. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Useful. [22] SaintAviator lets talk 07:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |