This page 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 talk page. |
Will undo your edit an place the information you deleted in another section of the article.-- Jetstreamer ( talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:A/R/C#Russavia, Biophys, etc.. T. Canens ( talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, just wanted to let you know of a discussion over at the Blocks/Protections noticeboard at Commons regarding User:Jo0doe, since you have been involved with discussions regarding him in the past. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please note that it is pertinent that discussion and notices relating to my actions in an administrative capacity on Commons should be posted on my Commons talk page. Not to my enwp talk page. Please just remember this in future. However, I will respond here, and will copy it to the Admin noticeboard on Commons as well. The file in question has been a long standing area of dispute on Commons with infantility on all sides within that general area. If you refer to Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Description_page_locked in mid-September I moved the image to a name which can't be disputed by anyone, and due to edit warring I also locked the image page for 1 month. I also posted Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Note_on_what_is_needed where I explained to editors exactly what is needed for any edits to be made to the file image page. It was my intention as an admin to give EVERYONE a clean slate on Commons in relation to this particular file (and somewhat in general) -- everything previous would be ignored and forgotten -- and editors would be required to work together in order to reach a firm description for this image (even noting reliable controversies related to this image specifically). In other words, it is an opportunity for editors to show that they can be productive and collegial on Commons, even if they have problems doing so on other projects (again directed to ALL editors). I also posted at Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Still_no_source_for_1933 where I explained what date of publication meant, and what consequences incorrect information would mean to having it on Commons. I also advised that I was taking the file and talk page off my watchlist, and had no desire to become involved (in an administrative capacity) in the debate, mainly because of other "projects" I have been working on taking up my time, and I wouldn't be able to spend any great time on it. Now is the first time that I have seen that page since posting that comment. What I see there since my last post is ignoring by Jo0doe of my administrative direction that only information/evidence relating to the specific image should be discussed as it is only such evidence that will be taken into account by administrators. I also see from Lothar ignoring of a direction to be Commons:Commons:MELLOW, especially Commons:Commons:MELLOW#What_not_to_do_while_you_are_here.... I have given ALL the opportunity for a clean slate on Commons to be collegial, and as such any problems from the past will be ignored by myself. There will be NO importing of disputes from other projects to Commons. Commons is not an extension of battlegrounds from other wikis, where problematic editors are able to continue such behaviour. Editorial behaviour on "EE topics" in future on Commons is going to be collegial, it is going to be constructive, it is going to civil, it is beneficial to this project. Battle armour and weapons of mass disruption will be checked at the door when entering Commons. We on Commons do not care if the Holodomor (for example) is genocide or not; it is irrelevant to our Commons:Project scope (read ALL of this carefully), which is being a repository of freely licenced educational media. And if editors are using Commons to settle scores for editorial conflicts on other projects, they will be swiftly shown the door. I have also made it clear that ALL editors are able to approach me for assistance/advice on my Commons talk page if they need it. This has already occurred at Commons:User_talk:Russavia/Archive_2#Recent_rename. Any this stands true even now, and it goes for ALL editors; contact me on my talk page if advice is needed on any issue relating to Commons, whether that be copyright questions, or questions relating to editorial conduct -- if I am unable to help due to lack of time, or any other reason, I will direct you to the appropriate area on Commons for assistance. In relation to this request, if there is other disruption, let's say post-22 September 2011 (with exceptions for noted comments above), then please provide the evidence of this, and if it requires blocking of editors (from any side), or file description protection, etc, you can be assured that I will take necessary actions without prejudice. It was my intention to try and give all editors in the somewhat problematic EE area a clean slate to prove that their presence on Commons is beneficial to the community. With the exception of the two edits from the article talk page noted above, I do not see anything else in this request that is post-my instructions on the talk page; some of the links go back months. I am also somewhat concerned by editors who aren't Commons contributors (next to no edits on Commons) and are known "opponents" on other editors appearing at this request; User:Galassi is one such example; the IP is the other. It is reasonable to assume that there is a possibility that this request has been canvassed; if this is the case please provide any necessary links to where this has been done; because if this is the case, it is classic importation of battlegrounds from other projects, and in future will be frowned upon at least, and the ignoring of non-contributors and known "adversaries" from other projects at best. To fellow admins, please consider my comments above. I will not be acting upon this request, as it was my intent to give these editors an opportunity to be positive contributors to Commons, and have encouraged discussion between parties, by explaining what we as admins need when there are disputes. It is likely that many editors on all sides do not realise that Commons is not Wikipedia---by giving them this opportunity to know what is expected of them as editors on Commons; I am almost certain that if all editors completely reset their AGF metre in relation to their adversaries from other projects, one could see improvement of content on Commons, with a possible side-effect of more collegial editing on other projects where this has not been the case previously. I think this is worth a shot. However, if I were to act upon this request, I would place the following blocks:
I would also recognise that all editors are as guilty as one another in the battle and importation of dramuh from other projects in violation of Commons principles. This recognition is not directed at any editor, but would be put out there as a generalisation. I would also remind editors to discuss the content rather than the editors -- on Commons the content, especially sources relating to publication and copyright is of utmost importance; this could make the difference between whether stays on Commons or is deleted -- disputes from other projects are of almost total irrelevance to us here. If Commons:Scope is not understood by editors coming to Commons from other projects as being completely different from Wikipedia, and they refuse to drop outside disputes upon entering the door, they should be reminded that their presence here on Commons could be problematic in future. I would also recognise that editors may or may not have trouble understanding our policies, guidelines and other information on Commons due to language barrier issues. If this is the case, they should be directed to relevant information in a language they understand, or failing such a link being available requesting asisstance. Or other admins, and the above (and all other) editors can agree today is the day that a new leaf was turned over. I see no harm in this, as those editors who are disruptive would be banned completely in the future anyway if they are that disruptive. Dramuh from other projects should immediately be rejected as from now. It is worth a shot I believe, let's see what could be produced from this; nothing to lose, but a lot to gain. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
|
I've taken down the evidence page because, in the light of recent events, it seems to be no longer needed. I will restore it if circumstances require; please let me know if you see any further incidents of possible sockpuppetry relating to this individual. Prioryman ( talk) 10:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
He's back. I've restored the page at User:Prioryman/evidence and will develop it into an SPI. If you have additional evidence, please let me know. Prioryman ( talk) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Russavia! Here are couple of discussions on this matter on [1], [2], and [3]. Former routes doesn't appear to be encyclopedic and sometimes they are hard to reference. Some carriers that have terminated services to Perth may restart them. I suggest you bring it up at WP:AIRPORTS and gain new consensus if you feel that it should added. Snoozlepet ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Could you procure some images from the Kremlin.ru to illustrate the article Eurasian Union? I'm not exactly sure about the procedure to do it myself, given all those copyrights etc. GreyHood Talk 00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia 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. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 23:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you are going to participate, aren't you? I'm just trying to assess how many people are interested (I'm planning to answer at least some of the questions myself, too). Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:13 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestion, good pic! SpeedyGonsales ( talk) 21:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you are missing one of these, feel free to add this one to your A320 collection -- Biggerben ( talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
– Connormah ( talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you still need photos for different Moscow landmarks? I travel and walk around the city quite often so I could help the common cause :). P.S. Is it better to write on your TP in English or Russian? Artem Karimov ( talk) 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edition. I am interested in finding out why the removal of such image? Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oooh. Well lol yourself! You must be very special if the Wikipedia rules of discussion don't apply to you, and you can simply state what is and is not acceptable to everyone, including to our readers who rely on us for actual information and multiple points of view. Read this or ignore it, as you like. Apparently your definition of "spam" is "anything which doesn't support your personal spin". 75.59.206.69 ( talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, a while back I created the Russia–Sri Lanka relations article, which I believe you have contributed to. I was thinking of improving the article when I came across your article User:Russavia/Sri Lanka. I wondering if its ok if I can take the information from your user article and place it in the Russia–Sri Lanka relations? Thanks!-- Blackknight12 ( talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a usable photo at the Denise Welch article. The only free photo we had was horrible, and I fought to keep it out, feeling no photo was better than an uncomplimentary one. Happy holidays! Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for uploading File:Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Still interested?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 12, 2011; 14:24 (UTC)
if you know how to do it properly. you can find the details on the discussion page. Thanks a lot 170.148.215.157 ( talk) 22:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing_of_Boris_Berezovsky_article спасибо и с НГ! 170.148.215.157 ( talk) 08:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you place tags on the top of an article like the one at the top of Singapore Airlines Cargo you need to expalin in as much detail as possible the problems with the article in the talk page. You shouldn't just tag it without this. Thanks. -- JetBlast ( talk) 01:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
When your edits conflict with those of another editor who saved changes before you did, as I did at Women's archery in Australia, you need to merge in your changes with the edits that preceded yours, not simply destroy them as if your edits are more important than everyone else's. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, I thought you might be interested in participating in this peer review. Kind Regards -- Marek. 69 talk 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR) | |
Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale ( talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
I have asked for you to be blocked for your remarks here. You are quite simply wrong about this, but I do not expect that anything I say will change your mind. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You have listed this as a 1950s picture - but haven't linked to a source or reason for determining this age. Do you more information about this image? Rmhermen ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
We have been watching it quite a task you have set the active wa eds there!! well done! Satu Suro 13:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Re your note. No problems. Moondyne ( talk) 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for making changes on your workpage, thought I was assisting - as per your note have made some suggestions in respect to links on the talkpage. Keep up the good work - is a good reminder of all the articles that need to be created. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
... this one for your page. Cheers! -- Dura-Ace ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location, Roger Davies talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Russavia. I'm not under the impression that I am capable of turning bigots into enlightened people, but I do think I might be able to help prevent non-bigots from being unfairly labeled as bigots. With that in mind, I wanted to make sure you saw my reply (and offer) on that other page. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I found your name here, as the one of only two participants of the Sports and games in Russia task force. If you have a chance, would you be so kind to take a look at Luzhniki disaster? It's a start-class article, but I recently did a lot of work on it. Do you think it could be rated as C or even B class now? Thank you. -- Potorochin ( talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
**What a coup**
Saw the DYK on the main page, read the article and came here to say how impressed I am by your letter that released valuable material to the world. Brilliant. An example of success from "being bold". Well done. Victuallers ( talk) 08:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
On 9 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natalya Timakova, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Russian Presidential press attaché Natalya Timakova, rated the third most powerful woman in Russian politics in 2011, allowed Wikipedia to use materials from the Presidential website Kremlin.ru? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natalya Timakova.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors - I suspect you will have a view on this. Prioryman ( talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This page 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 talk page. |
Will undo your edit an place the information you deleted in another section of the article.-- Jetstreamer ( talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:A/R/C#Russavia, Biophys, etc.. T. Canens ( talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, just wanted to let you know of a discussion over at the Blocks/Protections noticeboard at Commons regarding User:Jo0doe, since you have been involved with discussions regarding him in the past. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please note that it is pertinent that discussion and notices relating to my actions in an administrative capacity on Commons should be posted on my Commons talk page. Not to my enwp talk page. Please just remember this in future. However, I will respond here, and will copy it to the Admin noticeboard on Commons as well. The file in question has been a long standing area of dispute on Commons with infantility on all sides within that general area. If you refer to Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Description_page_locked in mid-September I moved the image to a name which can't be disputed by anyone, and due to edit warring I also locked the image page for 1 month. I also posted Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Note_on_what_is_needed where I explained to editors exactly what is needed for any edits to be made to the file image page. It was my intention as an admin to give EVERYONE a clean slate on Commons in relation to this particular file (and somewhat in general) -- everything previous would be ignored and forgotten -- and editors would be required to work together in order to reach a firm description for this image (even noting reliable controversies related to this image specifically). In other words, it is an opportunity for editors to show that they can be productive and collegial on Commons, even if they have problems doing so on other projects (again directed to ALL editors). I also posted at Commons:File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Still_no_source_for_1933 where I explained what date of publication meant, and what consequences incorrect information would mean to having it on Commons. I also advised that I was taking the file and talk page off my watchlist, and had no desire to become involved (in an administrative capacity) in the debate, mainly because of other "projects" I have been working on taking up my time, and I wouldn't be able to spend any great time on it. Now is the first time that I have seen that page since posting that comment. What I see there since my last post is ignoring by Jo0doe of my administrative direction that only information/evidence relating to the specific image should be discussed as it is only such evidence that will be taken into account by administrators. I also see from Lothar ignoring of a direction to be Commons:Commons:MELLOW, especially Commons:Commons:MELLOW#What_not_to_do_while_you_are_here.... I have given ALL the opportunity for a clean slate on Commons to be collegial, and as such any problems from the past will be ignored by myself. There will be NO importing of disputes from other projects to Commons. Commons is not an extension of battlegrounds from other wikis, where problematic editors are able to continue such behaviour. Editorial behaviour on "EE topics" in future on Commons is going to be collegial, it is going to be constructive, it is going to civil, it is beneficial to this project. Battle armour and weapons of mass disruption will be checked at the door when entering Commons. We on Commons do not care if the Holodomor (for example) is genocide or not; it is irrelevant to our Commons:Project scope (read ALL of this carefully), which is being a repository of freely licenced educational media. And if editors are using Commons to settle scores for editorial conflicts on other projects, they will be swiftly shown the door. I have also made it clear that ALL editors are able to approach me for assistance/advice on my Commons talk page if they need it. This has already occurred at Commons:User_talk:Russavia/Archive_2#Recent_rename. Any this stands true even now, and it goes for ALL editors; contact me on my talk page if advice is needed on any issue relating to Commons, whether that be copyright questions, or questions relating to editorial conduct -- if I am unable to help due to lack of time, or any other reason, I will direct you to the appropriate area on Commons for assistance. In relation to this request, if there is other disruption, let's say post-22 September 2011 (with exceptions for noted comments above), then please provide the evidence of this, and if it requires blocking of editors (from any side), or file description protection, etc, you can be assured that I will take necessary actions without prejudice. It was my intention to try and give all editors in the somewhat problematic EE area a clean slate to prove that their presence on Commons is beneficial to the community. With the exception of the two edits from the article talk page noted above, I do not see anything else in this request that is post-my instructions on the talk page; some of the links go back months. I am also somewhat concerned by editors who aren't Commons contributors (next to no edits on Commons) and are known "opponents" on other editors appearing at this request; User:Galassi is one such example; the IP is the other. It is reasonable to assume that there is a possibility that this request has been canvassed; if this is the case please provide any necessary links to where this has been done; because if this is the case, it is classic importation of battlegrounds from other projects, and in future will be frowned upon at least, and the ignoring of non-contributors and known "adversaries" from other projects at best. To fellow admins, please consider my comments above. I will not be acting upon this request, as it was my intent to give these editors an opportunity to be positive contributors to Commons, and have encouraged discussion between parties, by explaining what we as admins need when there are disputes. It is likely that many editors on all sides do not realise that Commons is not Wikipedia---by giving them this opportunity to know what is expected of them as editors on Commons; I am almost certain that if all editors completely reset their AGF metre in relation to their adversaries from other projects, one could see improvement of content on Commons, with a possible side-effect of more collegial editing on other projects where this has not been the case previously. I think this is worth a shot. However, if I were to act upon this request, I would place the following blocks:
I would also recognise that all editors are as guilty as one another in the battle and importation of dramuh from other projects in violation of Commons principles. This recognition is not directed at any editor, but would be put out there as a generalisation. I would also remind editors to discuss the content rather than the editors -- on Commons the content, especially sources relating to publication and copyright is of utmost importance; this could make the difference between whether stays on Commons or is deleted -- disputes from other projects are of almost total irrelevance to us here. If Commons:Scope is not understood by editors coming to Commons from other projects as being completely different from Wikipedia, and they refuse to drop outside disputes upon entering the door, they should be reminded that their presence here on Commons could be problematic in future. I would also recognise that editors may or may not have trouble understanding our policies, guidelines and other information on Commons due to language barrier issues. If this is the case, they should be directed to relevant information in a language they understand, or failing such a link being available requesting asisstance. Or other admins, and the above (and all other) editors can agree today is the day that a new leaf was turned over. I see no harm in this, as those editors who are disruptive would be banned completely in the future anyway if they are that disruptive. Dramuh from other projects should immediately be rejected as from now. It is worth a shot I believe, let's see what could be produced from this; nothing to lose, but a lot to gain. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
|
I've taken down the evidence page because, in the light of recent events, it seems to be no longer needed. I will restore it if circumstances require; please let me know if you see any further incidents of possible sockpuppetry relating to this individual. Prioryman ( talk) 10:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
He's back. I've restored the page at User:Prioryman/evidence and will develop it into an SPI. If you have additional evidence, please let me know. Prioryman ( talk) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Russavia! Here are couple of discussions on this matter on [1], [2], and [3]. Former routes doesn't appear to be encyclopedic and sometimes they are hard to reference. Some carriers that have terminated services to Perth may restart them. I suggest you bring it up at WP:AIRPORTS and gain new consensus if you feel that it should added. Snoozlepet ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Could you procure some images from the Kremlin.ru to illustrate the article Eurasian Union? I'm not exactly sure about the procedure to do it myself, given all those copyrights etc. GreyHood Talk 00:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia 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. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 23:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you are going to participate, aren't you? I'm just trying to assess how many people are interested (I'm planning to answer at least some of the questions myself, too). Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:13 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestion, good pic! SpeedyGonsales ( talk) 21:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you are missing one of these, feel free to add this one to your A320 collection -- Biggerben ( talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
– Connormah ( talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you still need photos for different Moscow landmarks? I travel and walk around the city quite often so I could help the common cause :). P.S. Is it better to write on your TP in English or Russian? Artem Karimov ( talk) 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edition. I am interested in finding out why the removal of such image? Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oooh. Well lol yourself! You must be very special if the Wikipedia rules of discussion don't apply to you, and you can simply state what is and is not acceptable to everyone, including to our readers who rely on us for actual information and multiple points of view. Read this or ignore it, as you like. Apparently your definition of "spam" is "anything which doesn't support your personal spin". 75.59.206.69 ( talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, a while back I created the Russia–Sri Lanka relations article, which I believe you have contributed to. I was thinking of improving the article when I came across your article User:Russavia/Sri Lanka. I wondering if its ok if I can take the information from your user article and place it in the Russia–Sri Lanka relations? Thanks!-- Blackknight12 ( talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a usable photo at the Denise Welch article. The only free photo we had was horrible, and I fought to keep it out, feeling no photo was better than an uncomplimentary one. Happy holidays! Lhb1239 ( talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for uploading File:Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Still interested?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 12, 2011; 14:24 (UTC)
if you know how to do it properly. you can find the details on the discussion page. Thanks a lot 170.148.215.157 ( talk) 22:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing_of_Boris_Berezovsky_article спасибо и с НГ! 170.148.215.157 ( talk) 08:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you place tags on the top of an article like the one at the top of Singapore Airlines Cargo you need to expalin in as much detail as possible the problems with the article in the talk page. You shouldn't just tag it without this. Thanks. -- JetBlast ( talk) 01:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
When your edits conflict with those of another editor who saved changes before you did, as I did at Women's archery in Australia, you need to merge in your changes with the edits that preceded yours, not simply destroy them as if your edits are more important than everyone else's. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, I thought you might be interested in participating in this peer review. Kind Regards -- Marek. 69 talk 01:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR) | |
Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale ( talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
I have asked for you to be blocked for your remarks here. You are quite simply wrong about this, but I do not expect that anything I say will change your mind. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You have listed this as a 1950s picture - but haven't linked to a source or reason for determining this age. Do you more information about this image? Rmhermen ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
We have been watching it quite a task you have set the active wa eds there!! well done! Satu Suro 13:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Re your note. No problems. Moondyne ( talk) 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for making changes on your workpage, thought I was assisting - as per your note have made some suggestions in respect to links on the talkpage. Keep up the good work - is a good reminder of all the articles that need to be created. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
... this one for your page. Cheers! -- Dura-Ace ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location, Roger Davies talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Russavia. I'm not under the impression that I am capable of turning bigots into enlightened people, but I do think I might be able to help prevent non-bigots from being unfairly labeled as bigots. With that in mind, I wanted to make sure you saw my reply (and offer) on that other page. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I found your name here, as the one of only two participants of the Sports and games in Russia task force. If you have a chance, would you be so kind to take a look at Luzhniki disaster? It's a start-class article, but I recently did a lot of work on it. Do you think it could be rated as C or even B class now? Thank you. -- Potorochin ( talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
**What a coup**
Saw the DYK on the main page, read the article and came here to say how impressed I am by your letter that released valuable material to the world. Brilliant. An example of success from "being bold". Well done. Victuallers ( talk) 08:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
On 9 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natalya Timakova, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Russian Presidential press attaché Natalya Timakova, rated the third most powerful woman in Russian politics in 2011, allowed Wikipedia to use materials from the Presidential website Kremlin.ru? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natalya Timakova.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors - I suspect you will have a view on this. Prioryman ( talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)