Leave me a New Message Please click here to start a new Section below and leave me a message. Cheers! |
Thanks for your edits. They are great.-- Jacurek ( talk) 20:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This copyright for this image is actually held by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Copyright is asserted on this page: http://inquery.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/2245 -- Rrburke( talk) 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I was about to post a "Nice Catch" on your deletion, but then I thought I'd approach the internet search a little differently. I googled "mafia tampan language" and got multiple hits! Heres one: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080810/ARTICLE/808100348?Title=Gotti-arrest-has-Tampa-in-Mafia-territory-again
You might read through a few of those google hits, and draw a different conclusion, one which may prompt your re-addition of the deleted material. Regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock-auto on hold|1=ProcseeBot|2={{blocked proxy}} <!-- 119.82.249.58:8080 -->|3=119.82.248.67|4=|5=On hold per comments noted below. There's no autoblocks, simply a proxy block. We could do an IP exemption after investigation. NJA (t/ c) 06:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi, I am not a bot. Please unblock me and check my edits from past 1/2 year from same location. Meishern ( talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
On these edits of yours: If you'd like to write up your fantasies about language, please do so on some other website. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have your talkpage on my watchlist (not sure why) but I noticed you removed your own comment because you felt you had gotten too personal. If you are uncomfortable with any personal details you wrote might I suggest contacting an oversighter to remove the comment from your talk page history? Just a friendly note :) OohBunnies! Not just any bunnies... 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I do not much about this gang, but I will see what I can find. - DonCalo ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Please accept this barnstar for your hard work, well written content and general nice-ness. :) OohBunnies! Not just any bunnies... 04:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, a lot of work has been done to bring this back up to FA standard. Can you revisit it please, and explain whether you think the article should be kept or removed as FA? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Bilal Skaf. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ***Adam*** 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice. This is a word that should almost always be in a quote, or not at all. Like "seminal". Keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 07:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Meishern, the article you used as a reference is clearly an opinion piece. The article is in written in the first person and the author expresses her own surprise at certain reactions she noted from some readers (which contradicted her own opinion about the incident). But the bigger issue is that by mentioning the races of the involved parties in the Wikipedia article this heavily implies that race was a significant factor in the rape. However the only source you supplied to back this up comes from opinions expressed by a select group of readers which does not make for a reliable source. SQGibbon ( talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Alexander Pechersky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I am making some minor edits while I review. Ishtar456 ( talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The summary should represent the whole article. It is perfectly acceptable to repeat info. that is in the main article. "He was married and had (insert number of) children." "He died on (insert date)". Since these details are in the article, they must also be in the lead.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 05:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Alexander Pechersky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexander Pechersky for things which need to be addressed. Ishtar456 ( talk) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not over the seven day limit. I was going to give you a little extra time anyway, since I guessed you were away. I am going to be busy, at least until Wednesday, so you have a little more time to work on the lead, spend a little more time "tweaking" it. Mention his family. Break it into a few paragraphs (2-4 is acceptable). I just looked at it quickly tonight and I see "World War 2" , the 2 should be Roman (II) and it should be wikilinked. The first mention of a phrase like that should be wikilinked. After I give it a good read I will let you know what I find. I will not fail it without giving you some time to fix anything I might find, if it is small I will fix it myself. I think it is an excellent article, just have to give it an excellent lead.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 05:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A spouse is not a favorite brand of underwear. If you had not mentioned a wife in the article, I would not suggest you add her to the lead summary. The lead summary should represent the article See MOSlead. I did not say "gimp", I said "tweak", which means "to make better". I'm shocked by your reaction. I think that you are a half centimeter from having me pass this article and you are asking me to fail it. I'll let you think about your request today and if you do not change your mind I will fail the article tomorrow. What a shame.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I received your message this evening on my user page. The thing is I already failed the article at your request. I got your apology much too late. Yesterday I removed the article from the nomination list and posted that it failed at your request. I said: "I am failing this article at the nominators request. I felt I was following the MOSlead guidelines. What has resulted is an unnecessary edit war between nominator and reviewer.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)" If you go to the discussion page for the article and read the box that explains that the article failed, you will see that you have the option of requesting a "reassessment" or you can renominate it. I have washed my hands of it.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad it is sorted out! For what it is worth, I believe that three general viewpoints: that of the classic midrashim, that of the classic commentaries (e.g. from Mikraot Gdolot) and modern (critical i.e. higher and lower criticism) scholarship all have a place in Wikipedia. Obviously with regards to the Ten Commandments, I think there should be one article on different religious points of view (beginning with Judaism versus Christianity) and a separate article on different views among higher critics. As for your most recent comment: if we succeed in establishing two separate articles and lifting the page protection, I think it would be a great service if you began a section reviewing any debates or major comments by Jewish sages.
Wikipedia's NPOV policy will demand careful attribution of any view (so that it is always x's interpretation of a text, and I think it would be important to distinguish between the views of the tanaim and Amoraim and medieval commentators), but I think Wikipedia needs articles on each book of the Bible, or Biblical topics, to incorporate Jewish commentary. I cannot do this, but you do not need to complain about other editors who do not see things your way. As long as the POV is clearly identified, you and others can just go ahead and start incorporating these views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Why "more problems?" Because kwama reverted my edit? Of course he reverted my edit! he is a "POV-pusher" and will not accept consensus. He will keep reverting edits. He is not interested in dialogue and I do not think it is worth my time to try to explain things to him any more. It is up to editors who share the consensus to keep restoring the consensus version. If he keeps reverting, we can report it to the Administrator's noticeboard. But no single editor can be allowed to hold an article hostage. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello; I have nominated the above article for GAN for several weeks and it has not yet be reviewed. I noticed you were reviewing GA nominations right now and I would like to ask you, if you have the time and inclination to do so, to review my article as well. Thank you very much. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
<----
Teeninvestor, you didn't mention that this article is in the middle of a heated debate/edit war. #4 point i look at is "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars." I am not gonna quick fail it, but will put it on hold until I finish reading the article, better understand the issues behind the conflict regarding the content of the article or consensus is reached. There is no way to GA this article when there are dozens of edits and reverts in the past 30 days which are likely to continue. I suggest you and the other editors reach a compromise as was done on dozens of other emotionally charged articles. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That are great news! Although I did write most of it, your constructive criticism and critical input was very important. Thank you! Best wishes! A.Cython ( talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! But I certainly did not write that myself!!! It was laready there, and I thought it was very strange indeed, but then I thought maybe it's true, as if the thieves had brought peace... I did not dare change it to the more logical "World of Thieves" as I have no background on the topic. So PLEASE take a look at the edits I did make and not the text that was already there and that was not at all my doing. ))) -- Cata-girl ( talk) 22:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
He there again. The edit didn't come from me, but maybe it looked like it did because I was about to change it to "Thieves' World", so maybe I actually started to do that but then stopped. However, I never saved those particular changes. Hmmm, oh well. nyway, that's basically what I was trying to do, was to fix some of the most outlandish parts of the article. I'll try to be more referential in the future, but some of it was just plain common sense. The article has some serious problems, but I think it's beyond me to fix them right now, as I don't know enough about the topic. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Take care! -- Cata-girl ( talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking about the changes you made to the article in question, and it occurs to me that you may be wrong. We both know that the Russian word "mir" has 2 translations in Egnlish, peace and world (I studied Russian for 4 years at university, and yes, it was my specialization. I have not lost touch with the Russian-speaking world and speak Russian on a regular basis even here in Barcelona. There is a large Russian community. Also, I am in touch with the former Soviet world through my husband, who is Ukrainian and who grew up and studied in the Soviet Union.) Now "воровской мир" may very well be "Thieves' Peace", as an ironic statement about how the end of the "Russian Revolution" (which was basically a bloody civil war with "rampaging" lawlessness) may have been brought about by bandits and thieves coming into control. What did YOU base your edit on??? I see no references to anything in your edit. The author may have known what he or she was talking about, though the article may be poorly written and the English not quite up to standard. When I decided not to change the translation, it was because I was unsure, and also because I looked on internet for the term in Russian and found didly squat. However, I will ask my husband, who is currently in Ukraine, what could be the true meaning of the phrase, but I would not just jump to the conclusion that it's not "Thieves' Peace". I was also looking at my edits from yesterday. What I did was add the Russian-language version of Vorovskoy mir in parenthesis (as well as correct the English, I believe. If I remember correctly, the English version said "Thieve's peace". And you can see that that is wrong. Also, I may have added the italic format to the phrase "Vorovskoy mir", I can't remember for sure now). I also changed the first part of the sentence (improved style: "according to + author's name") and the first part of the quote in the sentence which now reads "Furthermore, according to Michael Schwirtz, "ethnicity has rarely determined whether someone can join the club, and ...", as the author of the article had MISQUOTED Schwirtz. He had written something along the lines of "ethnicity doesn't matter", which skews the sentence a bit and leaves a lot out, when you think about it. So, let's see what we can come up with to clear up this mystery, but I have a feeling the author of the article was right about the "Thieves' peace" translation... -- Cata-girl ( talk) 06:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! Well, then I guess you are truly an expert! Sorry if I sounded vindictive, I didn't mean to. Anyway, I believe you now! In addition, my husband says he just doesn't know about the phrase, so there's no contradiction there. Take care Meishern. )) -- Cata-girl ( talk) 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — DoRD ( talk) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Meishern. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You charge of "highjacking" the article is uncalled-for and out of line. Your edits were in good faith, but factually incorrect and unencyclopedic. Again, Jews comprise 1/3 of the victims of Baby Yar, and many of the latter were in fact Ukrainians, some notable ones.- Galassi ( talk) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:C.Wirth.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added in more sources to the article. Any more comments to the GAN would be nice to see what else I need to do to get it passed :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Re your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day, seriously, you need to toke up or chill or something. Comments like these make it harder for other editors to work with you in the future and thus tend to compromise your ability to edit to your best ability. I recognize it's a fraught subject, but we need light, not heat. Herostratus ( talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Alexander Pechersky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexander Pechersky for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Meishern. Will you resume your review of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that all of your edits are marked as minor yet most of the are not. Please read this Help:Minor edit to understand what a minor edit is. If you have checked the "mark all edits as minor" box in your editing preferences please go in and uncheck it. If, on the other hand, you are clicking the "this is a minor edit" box before you save and edit please only do so when your edit truly is a minor one. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. Thank you for your efforts here at wikipedia and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 11:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just looked, and the box was checked. Thanks for pointing it out for me. Sometimes a minor edit turns into a major one, once I start reading the editing screen. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 13:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You have misunderstood me if you think I am defending an informant of any kind. I was just saying for you to talk down on that guy (which I don't disagree with), yet threaten to inform on me for the 3R is pretty much the same thing. In my opinion, all informants should be killed. I have too many friends in prison, both state and federal, who would never have been there and been taken from their children and wives if not for some low-life who betrayed the only people who ever helped him. I despise informants and believe they should be EXPOSED. Look at the Black Mafia Family article; I quasi-know Demetrius and felt the names of those who betrayed him and the organization should be exposed, so I listed them all up on there. Anyways, I agree this article needs to be re-written, it's never been Wikipedia-quality. If I knew enough about it and had enough cites I would. jlcoving ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious about an edit by you. this appears to be some kind of joke or vandalism. Could you explain? Hobit ( talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad (2nd nomination). 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. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Have mörser, will travel (
talk) 04:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been perusing through the AfD discussion for the List of Killings of Muhammed, and I noticed instances that seem to broach the lines of WP:UNCIVIL on your part. Specifically, accusing others of "deceiving people by making up/lying/inventing quotes" constitutes a breach of WP:AGF, and such comments should not be made, even if you believe them to be true. I understand that deletion discussions involving religious figures and subjects can be the subject of heated emotions, but I ask that you reflect on your edits before submitting them and consider what their tone and style say about you as an editor. Much thanks, Van Isaac WS contribs 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Erich bauer sobibor.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hoops gza ( talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Franz Stangl.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hoops gza ( talk) 03:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The user you are currently dealing with about images has undergone a lengthy list of problems on Wikipedia with regards to understanding our policies. Just on the surface, there have been numerous false image licensing tags, attempts to delete or move articles without consensus, as well as a string of improper category creations. The user means well, but doesn't really seem to think he/she will really get in trouble for disregarding our policies and pretty much acts as they please - so far, there has been no real repercussions. I've tried to draw admin attention to this, but there really was never any interest. Maybe with this new round of knowingly uploading images with false license tags, people will start to listen. - OberRanks ( talk) 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bolender kurt ss.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hoops gza ( talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
can you tell me if there is anything wrong with the article mentioned in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2#Request_for_comment
Thanks-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please give your opinion here, it would be most welcomed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet
Thanks in advance-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
For helping to prevent edit wars Misconceptions2 ( talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. I don't know what to say. I would like to thank my second parole officer for not giving up and the court mandated anger management classes. Thanks Misconceptions2. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 16:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
He is my relative and I'm wondering if you have any information that would lead to what I assume is his uncle Chaim Pechersky, who changed their name to Peck when moving to St. Paul Minnesota USA around 1900.
Chaim Pechersky would most likely be his uncle, and my grandmother Shirley Peck (Chaim's daughter) is the maternal relationship.
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Harlan Blumenthal Minnetonka Minnesota USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.106.195 ( talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
(disclosure: i don't work for ancestry.com, nor receive a commission, nor vouch for accuracy.)
Can you please provide a source for your addition to the article Stung Treng? Thank you. - Takeaway ( talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Meishern. I meant to add a link to the Legislative Assembly page as a reference. I'll make sure to do so for all future articles.
Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oafp ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Meishern/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kriesi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flash ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Booker T. Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reconstruction ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bifurcation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This edit looks to me like a prank or vandalism. Do you have any evidence for what you claimed?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Moving your reaction here from Talk:Crusades. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I took what I thought were 4 dull sentences of the current 3rd paragraph and I rewrote them using the same ideas as were there but making the words less boring [9], which were removed as original research. I expanded on the meaning of the phrases "under feudal rather than unified command" (why?) and "the politics were often complicated" (how?). Please let me know what parts do not fall in line with what was there before (and what is there now). Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Whats up?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Meishern, just wanted to see how far along you were on the GA review. No rush, just curious. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 03:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and asked for a 2nd opinion as I didn't get a response above. Also, this will take care of Tom's objections. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 23:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
(Note: I've moved Meishern's text here in a subsection and responded below it.)
Tonystewart14 (
talk) 02:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Tonystewart14, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I passed the review over to
SilkTork since I really am overextended and by priorities had to give it up.
If you have a moment, please read the article Alexander Pechersky which I rewrote in whole 100% from a tiny stub, about the Jewish WW2 hero who led the escape from Sobibor death camp ( made into an 80s movie where he was played by Rutger Hauer in the Escape from Sobibor ). I wrote that while fighting off revisionists and nationalists and nominated that article to GA, which it is today. That article is balanced and reads pretty smoothly without any attempts of hiding inconvenient facts to distort history. Does it read as though someone pushing a revisionist fascist agenda wrote this?
Now please re-read the intro to the Leo Frank article afterwards. There is no flow, disjointed sentences often with weird syntax are lumped into paragraphs. Facts that go against a specific narrative are kept out and needlessly hidden from the reader - for example (1) in the lede the fact that Frank was sentenced to death has been pushed to nearly the end to overemphasize the POV narrative (2) no mention of the governor's huge conflict of interest in commuting the death sentence is allowed in the article, since it would take away from the POV narrative. Wanting those facts included does not make one a fascist. Let me explain why.
What Tom don't want to allow for, is that Frank's pardon was one of those situations - where Frank was doomed if the governor commuted his death sentenced, and doomed if the governor did not. The day Frank was to be executed was fast approaching, so the governor despite his conflict of interest, and knowing fully well the consequences/backlash he will face from his constituency, still commuted the death sentence. Why? The fact that the governor was already a very wealthy man makes any suggestion that he was bribed to commute the sentence a non-issue. He committed political suicide because he saw that Frank got a raw deal, and so he made a moral choice to commute the death sentence. No sum of money would be enough for an extremely wealthy politician to willingly commit political suicide. Belief in Frank's innocence is the only logical reason for a rich, popular and very wealthy politician to commute the sentence and thus instantly turn himself into the most hated and despised man to be run out of state under guard.
However the governor's conflict of interest was the straw that broke the camel's back for the local population who were - (1) simmering after decades of Yankee interference in local matters during the post-civil war reconstruction - and (2) very heated up by the daily rhetoric by that one agenda driven publisher - causing the well educated group of respected citizens to murder Frank, no longer caring whether he was innocent or not. So by commuting the death sentence (while having a conflict of interest everyone knew about), and without moving Frank to a prison in some far away state, the governor in essence sentenced Frank to be lynched, since he must have known how his pardon with the conflict of interest would be interpreted - as a corrupt act by a governor bought off with a Yankee bribe. (Now the actual events start to make sense a bit more.)
Without this addition, the reader is left confused and learns nothing. So history will repeat itself since in a misguided effort to do the 'right thing', a POV narrative was introduced to the article turning everyone into a cartoon character : ( Southern ignorant bigots arrest and convict a man in a sham trial and then in an enraged bloodlust lynch him for no reason but his religion, while everyone knew well that he was innocent ). Anything that goes against making this narrative stronger is reverted, leading to readers being puzzled and feeling that something is being kept out in an effort to artificially sway their opinions.
More importantly some conspiracy minded readers will assume the article was skewed and facts are withheld on purpose by an organized agenda. So who do you suppose will be stereotyped and blamed for the agenda and thus enflaming anti-semitism even further? Tom and you are not members of the tribe I don't think, so perhaps some time from now when the pushback against this narrative will show itself, it won't be directed at either one of you. I on the other hand do have a dog in this fight, and would have liked to see more neutrality and facts, and less misguided agenda driven censorship in this important article. Good luck. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuckservative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative movement. 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) 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Meishern, just got the message a bot sent on your behalf. I got Leo Frank to GA after Tom rewrote a lot of content and the reviewer and I contributed quite a bit as well. If you like, feel free to look over it and let me know if you have any other suggestions. I remember you had some critiques of it that you didn't have time to elaborate on, but perhaps some of them have been resolved in the meantime. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I read your posts on the talk page of national socialism and must say I find them very interesting. Not easy to find people who see the staggering similarities between socialism and national socialism. But what about fascism? I still can't see exactly how it's exactly in the left, if I understand correctly. Would you mind explaining me in detail the connexions between the three or at least sending me some sources? You seem to have researched and are able to explain it very well.
Thank you very much!
4a98a77f(at)opayq(dot)com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.165.69 ( talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are u still in PP? I was thinking on joining other Wikimedians to celebrate. Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Its January 15, 2016. If we just decide a place, its easy to setup the celebration meeting, and even founding a Cambodia Wikimedia chapter. Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You played a major role in the evolution of the Leo Frank article by bringing it to the attention of silktork. Since silktork took stewardship of the article as a dispassionate adviser it has improved. So thank you for that. Recently, an editor named MarkBernstein is attempting to remove a link on the Leo Frank to The American Mercury which was placed there in context. I was wondering if you could respond to the discussion about why it is relevant to the article in context. Thanks DopeyBoB ( talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered,
File:Jasons cradle.jpeg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the
discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 16:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cuckold. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LL212W ( talk) 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cuckold, you may be blocked from editing. LL212W ( talk) 06:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Meishern. 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. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Meishern. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Michel hermann 1938.jpg. 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) 23:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Meishern! We are coming together for Wikipedia:Meetup/Phnom Penh/August 2021 in Koh Pich, and it would be great if you join that you give us one of the 3 short TED-style talks about your involvement on Wikipedia as you seem to be the most committed user living in the Kingdom of Cambodia. You can contact me through Facebook ( Will Conquer) or Telegram (+855 96 236 3478) for more info. Willuconquer ( talk) 08:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians in Phnom Penh indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Dan Koehl ( talk) 06:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Leave me a New Message Please click here to start a new Section below and leave me a message. Cheers! |
Thanks for your edits. They are great.-- Jacurek ( talk) 20:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This copyright for this image is actually held by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Copyright is asserted on this page: http://inquery.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/2245 -- Rrburke( talk) 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I was about to post a "Nice Catch" on your deletion, but then I thought I'd approach the internet search a little differently. I googled "mafia tampan language" and got multiple hits! Heres one: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080810/ARTICLE/808100348?Title=Gotti-arrest-has-Tampa-in-Mafia-territory-again
You might read through a few of those google hits, and draw a different conclusion, one which may prompt your re-addition of the deleted material. Regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock-auto on hold|1=ProcseeBot|2={{blocked proxy}} <!-- 119.82.249.58:8080 -->|3=119.82.248.67|4=|5=On hold per comments noted below. There's no autoblocks, simply a proxy block. We could do an IP exemption after investigation. NJA (t/ c) 06:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi, I am not a bot. Please unblock me and check my edits from past 1/2 year from same location. Meishern ( talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
On these edits of yours: If you'd like to write up your fantasies about language, please do so on some other website. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have your talkpage on my watchlist (not sure why) but I noticed you removed your own comment because you felt you had gotten too personal. If you are uncomfortable with any personal details you wrote might I suggest contacting an oversighter to remove the comment from your talk page history? Just a friendly note :) OohBunnies! Not just any bunnies... 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I do not much about this gang, but I will see what I can find. - DonCalo ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Please accept this barnstar for your hard work, well written content and general nice-ness. :) OohBunnies! Not just any bunnies... 04:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, a lot of work has been done to bring this back up to FA standard. Can you revisit it please, and explain whether you think the article should be kept or removed as FA? Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Bilal Skaf. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ***Adam*** 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice. This is a word that should almost always be in a quote, or not at all. Like "seminal". Keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 07:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Meishern, the article you used as a reference is clearly an opinion piece. The article is in written in the first person and the author expresses her own surprise at certain reactions she noted from some readers (which contradicted her own opinion about the incident). But the bigger issue is that by mentioning the races of the involved parties in the Wikipedia article this heavily implies that race was a significant factor in the rape. However the only source you supplied to back this up comes from opinions expressed by a select group of readers which does not make for a reliable source. SQGibbon ( talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Alexander Pechersky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I am making some minor edits while I review. Ishtar456 ( talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The summary should represent the whole article. It is perfectly acceptable to repeat info. that is in the main article. "He was married and had (insert number of) children." "He died on (insert date)". Since these details are in the article, they must also be in the lead.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 05:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Alexander Pechersky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexander Pechersky for things which need to be addressed. Ishtar456 ( talk) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not over the seven day limit. I was going to give you a little extra time anyway, since I guessed you were away. I am going to be busy, at least until Wednesday, so you have a little more time to work on the lead, spend a little more time "tweaking" it. Mention his family. Break it into a few paragraphs (2-4 is acceptable). I just looked at it quickly tonight and I see "World War 2" , the 2 should be Roman (II) and it should be wikilinked. The first mention of a phrase like that should be wikilinked. After I give it a good read I will let you know what I find. I will not fail it without giving you some time to fix anything I might find, if it is small I will fix it myself. I think it is an excellent article, just have to give it an excellent lead.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 05:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A spouse is not a favorite brand of underwear. If you had not mentioned a wife in the article, I would not suggest you add her to the lead summary. The lead summary should represent the article See MOSlead. I did not say "gimp", I said "tweak", which means "to make better". I'm shocked by your reaction. I think that you are a half centimeter from having me pass this article and you are asking me to fail it. I'll let you think about your request today and if you do not change your mind I will fail the article tomorrow. What a shame.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I received your message this evening on my user page. The thing is I already failed the article at your request. I got your apology much too late. Yesterday I removed the article from the nomination list and posted that it failed at your request. I said: "I am failing this article at the nominators request. I felt I was following the MOSlead guidelines. What has resulted is an unnecessary edit war between nominator and reviewer.--Ishtar456 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)" If you go to the discussion page for the article and read the box that explains that the article failed, you will see that you have the option of requesting a "reassessment" or you can renominate it. I have washed my hands of it.-- Ishtar456 ( talk) 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad it is sorted out! For what it is worth, I believe that three general viewpoints: that of the classic midrashim, that of the classic commentaries (e.g. from Mikraot Gdolot) and modern (critical i.e. higher and lower criticism) scholarship all have a place in Wikipedia. Obviously with regards to the Ten Commandments, I think there should be one article on different religious points of view (beginning with Judaism versus Christianity) and a separate article on different views among higher critics. As for your most recent comment: if we succeed in establishing two separate articles and lifting the page protection, I think it would be a great service if you began a section reviewing any debates or major comments by Jewish sages.
Wikipedia's NPOV policy will demand careful attribution of any view (so that it is always x's interpretation of a text, and I think it would be important to distinguish between the views of the tanaim and Amoraim and medieval commentators), but I think Wikipedia needs articles on each book of the Bible, or Biblical topics, to incorporate Jewish commentary. I cannot do this, but you do not need to complain about other editors who do not see things your way. As long as the POV is clearly identified, you and others can just go ahead and start incorporating these views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Why "more problems?" Because kwama reverted my edit? Of course he reverted my edit! he is a "POV-pusher" and will not accept consensus. He will keep reverting edits. He is not interested in dialogue and I do not think it is worth my time to try to explain things to him any more. It is up to editors who share the consensus to keep restoring the consensus version. If he keeps reverting, we can report it to the Administrator's noticeboard. But no single editor can be allowed to hold an article hostage. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello; I have nominated the above article for GAN for several weeks and it has not yet be reviewed. I noticed you were reviewing GA nominations right now and I would like to ask you, if you have the time and inclination to do so, to review my article as well. Thank you very much. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
<----
Teeninvestor, you didn't mention that this article is in the middle of a heated debate/edit war. #4 point i look at is "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars." I am not gonna quick fail it, but will put it on hold until I finish reading the article, better understand the issues behind the conflict regarding the content of the article or consensus is reached. There is no way to GA this article when there are dozens of edits and reverts in the past 30 days which are likely to continue. I suggest you and the other editors reach a compromise as was done on dozens of other emotionally charged articles. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That are great news! Although I did write most of it, your constructive criticism and critical input was very important. Thank you! Best wishes! A.Cython ( talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! But I certainly did not write that myself!!! It was laready there, and I thought it was very strange indeed, but then I thought maybe it's true, as if the thieves had brought peace... I did not dare change it to the more logical "World of Thieves" as I have no background on the topic. So PLEASE take a look at the edits I did make and not the text that was already there and that was not at all my doing. ))) -- Cata-girl ( talk) 22:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
He there again. The edit didn't come from me, but maybe it looked like it did because I was about to change it to "Thieves' World", so maybe I actually started to do that but then stopped. However, I never saved those particular changes. Hmmm, oh well. nyway, that's basically what I was trying to do, was to fix some of the most outlandish parts of the article. I'll try to be more referential in the future, but some of it was just plain common sense. The article has some serious problems, but I think it's beyond me to fix them right now, as I don't know enough about the topic. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Take care! -- Cata-girl ( talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking about the changes you made to the article in question, and it occurs to me that you may be wrong. We both know that the Russian word "mir" has 2 translations in Egnlish, peace and world (I studied Russian for 4 years at university, and yes, it was my specialization. I have not lost touch with the Russian-speaking world and speak Russian on a regular basis even here in Barcelona. There is a large Russian community. Also, I am in touch with the former Soviet world through my husband, who is Ukrainian and who grew up and studied in the Soviet Union.) Now "воровской мир" may very well be "Thieves' Peace", as an ironic statement about how the end of the "Russian Revolution" (which was basically a bloody civil war with "rampaging" lawlessness) may have been brought about by bandits and thieves coming into control. What did YOU base your edit on??? I see no references to anything in your edit. The author may have known what he or she was talking about, though the article may be poorly written and the English not quite up to standard. When I decided not to change the translation, it was because I was unsure, and also because I looked on internet for the term in Russian and found didly squat. However, I will ask my husband, who is currently in Ukraine, what could be the true meaning of the phrase, but I would not just jump to the conclusion that it's not "Thieves' Peace". I was also looking at my edits from yesterday. What I did was add the Russian-language version of Vorovskoy mir in parenthesis (as well as correct the English, I believe. If I remember correctly, the English version said "Thieve's peace". And you can see that that is wrong. Also, I may have added the italic format to the phrase "Vorovskoy mir", I can't remember for sure now). I also changed the first part of the sentence (improved style: "according to + author's name") and the first part of the quote in the sentence which now reads "Furthermore, according to Michael Schwirtz, "ethnicity has rarely determined whether someone can join the club, and ...", as the author of the article had MISQUOTED Schwirtz. He had written something along the lines of "ethnicity doesn't matter", which skews the sentence a bit and leaves a lot out, when you think about it. So, let's see what we can come up with to clear up this mystery, but I have a feeling the author of the article was right about the "Thieves' peace" translation... -- Cata-girl ( talk) 06:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! Well, then I guess you are truly an expert! Sorry if I sounded vindictive, I didn't mean to. Anyway, I believe you now! In addition, my husband says he just doesn't know about the phrase, so there's no contradiction there. Take care Meishern. )) -- Cata-girl ( talk) 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — DoRD ( talk) 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Meishern. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You charge of "highjacking" the article is uncalled-for and out of line. Your edits were in good faith, but factually incorrect and unencyclopedic. Again, Jews comprise 1/3 of the victims of Baby Yar, and many of the latter were in fact Ukrainians, some notable ones.- Galassi ( talk) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:C.Wirth.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added in more sources to the article. Any more comments to the GAN would be nice to see what else I need to do to get it passed :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Re your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day, seriously, you need to toke up or chill or something. Comments like these make it harder for other editors to work with you in the future and thus tend to compromise your ability to edit to your best ability. I recognize it's a fraught subject, but we need light, not heat. Herostratus ( talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Alexander Pechersky you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Alexander Pechersky for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Meishern. Will you resume your review of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that all of your edits are marked as minor yet most of the are not. Please read this Help:Minor edit to understand what a minor edit is. If you have checked the "mark all edits as minor" box in your editing preferences please go in and uncheck it. If, on the other hand, you are clicking the "this is a minor edit" box before you save and edit please only do so when your edit truly is a minor one. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. Thank you for your efforts here at wikipedia and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 11:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just looked, and the box was checked. Thanks for pointing it out for me. Sometimes a minor edit turns into a major one, once I start reading the editing screen. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 13:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You have misunderstood me if you think I am defending an informant of any kind. I was just saying for you to talk down on that guy (which I don't disagree with), yet threaten to inform on me for the 3R is pretty much the same thing. In my opinion, all informants should be killed. I have too many friends in prison, both state and federal, who would never have been there and been taken from their children and wives if not for some low-life who betrayed the only people who ever helped him. I despise informants and believe they should be EXPOSED. Look at the Black Mafia Family article; I quasi-know Demetrius and felt the names of those who betrayed him and the organization should be exposed, so I listed them all up on there. Anyways, I agree this article needs to be re-written, it's never been Wikipedia-quality. If I knew enough about it and had enough cites I would. jlcoving ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious about an edit by you. this appears to be some kind of joke or vandalism. Could you explain? Hobit ( talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad (2nd nomination). 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. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Have mörser, will travel (
talk) 04:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been perusing through the AfD discussion for the List of Killings of Muhammed, and I noticed instances that seem to broach the lines of WP:UNCIVIL on your part. Specifically, accusing others of "deceiving people by making up/lying/inventing quotes" constitutes a breach of WP:AGF, and such comments should not be made, even if you believe them to be true. I understand that deletion discussions involving religious figures and subjects can be the subject of heated emotions, but I ask that you reflect on your edits before submitting them and consider what their tone and style say about you as an editor. Much thanks, Van Isaac WS contribs 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Erich bauer sobibor.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hoops gza ( talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Franz Stangl.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hoops gza ( talk) 03:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The user you are currently dealing with about images has undergone a lengthy list of problems on Wikipedia with regards to understanding our policies. Just on the surface, there have been numerous false image licensing tags, attempts to delete or move articles without consensus, as well as a string of improper category creations. The user means well, but doesn't really seem to think he/she will really get in trouble for disregarding our policies and pretty much acts as they please - so far, there has been no real repercussions. I've tried to draw admin attention to this, but there really was never any interest. Maybe with this new round of knowingly uploading images with false license tags, people will start to listen. - OberRanks ( talk) 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bolender kurt ss.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hoops gza ( talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
can you tell me if there is anything wrong with the article mentioned in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2#Request_for_comment
Thanks-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please give your opinion here, it would be most welcomed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet
Thanks in advance-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
For helping to prevent edit wars Misconceptions2 ( talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. I don't know what to say. I would like to thank my second parole officer for not giving up and the court mandated anger management classes. Thanks Misconceptions2. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 16:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
He is my relative and I'm wondering if you have any information that would lead to what I assume is his uncle Chaim Pechersky, who changed their name to Peck when moving to St. Paul Minnesota USA around 1900.
Chaim Pechersky would most likely be his uncle, and my grandmother Shirley Peck (Chaim's daughter) is the maternal relationship.
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Harlan Blumenthal Minnetonka Minnesota USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.106.195 ( talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
(disclosure: i don't work for ancestry.com, nor receive a commission, nor vouch for accuracy.)
Can you please provide a source for your addition to the article Stung Treng? Thank you. - Takeaway ( talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Meishern. I meant to add a link to the Legislative Assembly page as a reference. I'll make sure to do so for all future articles.
Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oafp ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Meishern/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kriesi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flash ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Booker T. Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reconstruction ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bifurcation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This edit looks to me like a prank or vandalism. Do you have any evidence for what you claimed?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Moving your reaction here from Talk:Crusades. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I took what I thought were 4 dull sentences of the current 3rd paragraph and I rewrote them using the same ideas as were there but making the words less boring [9], which were removed as original research. I expanded on the meaning of the phrases "under feudal rather than unified command" (why?) and "the politics were often complicated" (how?). Please let me know what parts do not fall in line with what was there before (and what is there now). Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Whats up?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Meishern, just wanted to see how far along you were on the GA review. No rush, just curious. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 03:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and asked for a 2nd opinion as I didn't get a response above. Also, this will take care of Tom's objections. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 23:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
(Note: I've moved Meishern's text here in a subsection and responded below it.)
Tonystewart14 (
talk) 02:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Tonystewart14, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I passed the review over to
SilkTork since I really am overextended and by priorities had to give it up.
If you have a moment, please read the article Alexander Pechersky which I rewrote in whole 100% from a tiny stub, about the Jewish WW2 hero who led the escape from Sobibor death camp ( made into an 80s movie where he was played by Rutger Hauer in the Escape from Sobibor ). I wrote that while fighting off revisionists and nationalists and nominated that article to GA, which it is today. That article is balanced and reads pretty smoothly without any attempts of hiding inconvenient facts to distort history. Does it read as though someone pushing a revisionist fascist agenda wrote this?
Now please re-read the intro to the Leo Frank article afterwards. There is no flow, disjointed sentences often with weird syntax are lumped into paragraphs. Facts that go against a specific narrative are kept out and needlessly hidden from the reader - for example (1) in the lede the fact that Frank was sentenced to death has been pushed to nearly the end to overemphasize the POV narrative (2) no mention of the governor's huge conflict of interest in commuting the death sentence is allowed in the article, since it would take away from the POV narrative. Wanting those facts included does not make one a fascist. Let me explain why.
What Tom don't want to allow for, is that Frank's pardon was one of those situations - where Frank was doomed if the governor commuted his death sentenced, and doomed if the governor did not. The day Frank was to be executed was fast approaching, so the governor despite his conflict of interest, and knowing fully well the consequences/backlash he will face from his constituency, still commuted the death sentence. Why? The fact that the governor was already a very wealthy man makes any suggestion that he was bribed to commute the sentence a non-issue. He committed political suicide because he saw that Frank got a raw deal, and so he made a moral choice to commute the death sentence. No sum of money would be enough for an extremely wealthy politician to willingly commit political suicide. Belief in Frank's innocence is the only logical reason for a rich, popular and very wealthy politician to commute the sentence and thus instantly turn himself into the most hated and despised man to be run out of state under guard.
However the governor's conflict of interest was the straw that broke the camel's back for the local population who were - (1) simmering after decades of Yankee interference in local matters during the post-civil war reconstruction - and (2) very heated up by the daily rhetoric by that one agenda driven publisher - causing the well educated group of respected citizens to murder Frank, no longer caring whether he was innocent or not. So by commuting the death sentence (while having a conflict of interest everyone knew about), and without moving Frank to a prison in some far away state, the governor in essence sentenced Frank to be lynched, since he must have known how his pardon with the conflict of interest would be interpreted - as a corrupt act by a governor bought off with a Yankee bribe. (Now the actual events start to make sense a bit more.)
Without this addition, the reader is left confused and learns nothing. So history will repeat itself since in a misguided effort to do the 'right thing', a POV narrative was introduced to the article turning everyone into a cartoon character : ( Southern ignorant bigots arrest and convict a man in a sham trial and then in an enraged bloodlust lynch him for no reason but his religion, while everyone knew well that he was innocent ). Anything that goes against making this narrative stronger is reverted, leading to readers being puzzled and feeling that something is being kept out in an effort to artificially sway their opinions.
More importantly some conspiracy minded readers will assume the article was skewed and facts are withheld on purpose by an organized agenda. So who do you suppose will be stereotyped and blamed for the agenda and thus enflaming anti-semitism even further? Tom and you are not members of the tribe I don't think, so perhaps some time from now when the pushback against this narrative will show itself, it won't be directed at either one of you. I on the other hand do have a dog in this fight, and would have liked to see more neutrality and facts, and less misguided agenda driven censorship in this important article. Good luck. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuckservative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative movement. 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) 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Meishern, just got the message a bot sent on your behalf. I got Leo Frank to GA after Tom rewrote a lot of content and the reviewer and I contributed quite a bit as well. If you like, feel free to look over it and let me know if you have any other suggestions. I remember you had some critiques of it that you didn't have time to elaborate on, but perhaps some of them have been resolved in the meantime. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I read your posts on the talk page of national socialism and must say I find them very interesting. Not easy to find people who see the staggering similarities between socialism and national socialism. But what about fascism? I still can't see exactly how it's exactly in the left, if I understand correctly. Would you mind explaining me in detail the connexions between the three or at least sending me some sources? You seem to have researched and are able to explain it very well.
Thank you very much!
4a98a77f(at)opayq(dot)com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.165.69 ( talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are u still in PP? I was thinking on joining other Wikimedians to celebrate. Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Its January 15, 2016. If we just decide a place, its easy to setup the celebration meeting, and even founding a Cambodia Wikimedia chapter. Dan Koehl ( talk) 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You played a major role in the evolution of the Leo Frank article by bringing it to the attention of silktork. Since silktork took stewardship of the article as a dispassionate adviser it has improved. So thank you for that. Recently, an editor named MarkBernstein is attempting to remove a link on the Leo Frank to The American Mercury which was placed there in context. I was wondering if you could respond to the discussion about why it is relevant to the article in context. Thanks DopeyBoB ( talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered,
File:Jasons cradle.jpeg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the
discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 16:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cuckold. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LL212W ( talk) 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cuckold, you may be blocked from editing. LL212W ( talk) 06:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Meishern. 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. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Meishern. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Michel hermann 1938.jpg. 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) 23:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Meishern! We are coming together for Wikipedia:Meetup/Phnom Penh/August 2021 in Koh Pich, and it would be great if you join that you give us one of the 3 short TED-style talks about your involvement on Wikipedia as you seem to be the most committed user living in the Kingdom of Cambodia. You can contact me through Facebook ( Will Conquer) or Telegram (+855 96 236 3478) for more info. Willuconquer ( talk) 08:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians in Phnom Penh indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Dan Koehl ( talk) 06:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)