This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion
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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.
Elinruby ( talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR ( tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS ( talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.
Elinruby ( talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR ( tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 ( talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard? MehmoodS ( talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS ( talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 ( talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard? MehmoodS ( talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations. Michael Martinez ( talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.
I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.
For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.
Uncle G ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page. Michael Martinez ( talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations. Michael Martinez ( talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.
I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.
For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.
Uncle G ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page. Michael Martinez ( talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, you responded to that brand-new account that commented at Talk:Ivermectin just for an ad hominem argument against Alexbrn. I removed that comment, and your since it was solely a reply to the other. I hope that's ok, and feel free to revert if it's not. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
As it was indented as a general comment (rather than a specific reply to a user) it should not really have been removed as there is a tad too much soapboxing going on there. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Slatersteven an employee of the Wikipedia organization.? Odonanmarg 25 May, 2022. Odonanmarg ( talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 ( talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?
Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP, [1] BBC, [2] DW, [3] CNN, [4] WashPo, [5], Financial Times, [6] USA Today, et al?
- EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.-- Berposen ( talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy. -- Silve rije 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Slatersteven, as Azov Batallion is one of the more contentious articles within an already contentious topic area of the encyclopedia under AC/DS, the temperature there is elevated and new participants are sometimes viewed with suspicion, when they should be welcomed. Sometimes a welcome might turn out to be misplaced, but we don't know that at the outset. Disconnected Phrases is a brand new user, and other than some unfamiliarity with how we title sections and with some other of our principles, all normal for a new user, Disconnected Phrases still deserves the benefit of AGF. Whether I happen to agree with the appropriateness of the open letter by parliamentarians they raised there is beside the point; even if their presentation of the issue has some rough edges, their raising it seems clearly to be an attempt to improve the article, and comments about SOAP and NOTFORUM were out of line. I respect your comments site-wide enormously, and I suspect you may be frustrated by bad actors in the E. Europe topic generally, and at that article in particular which strains our ability to AGF, but let's try anyway, and especially, please welcome the newbies. Thanks for all you do to improve the project. Mathglot ( talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, let me express my utmost gratitude to you for having the gumption to undertake this duty. I haven't been editing on Wikipedia long, or at least not very much, but the Talk Page of that article, the jig-saw maze-like accumulation of sources - many appearing to outright contradict each other (very rarely IMO, if one simply applies WP:RS, especially the peer-review and time-sensitive aspects of our policy) - the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:OWNERSHIP sensibilities, must be an absolute nightmare for you to sift through.
Secondly, how close are you? Is there anything I can do to help?
Regards,
EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 04:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class | |
In thanks for - and to help you keep cool during - your continued patient efforts towards the ultimate goal of improving article quality in the too-often-over-heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 04:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
You're a true Hero of Wikipedia. Very selfless and brave of you. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Never seen anything like it.
Amazing stuff. Now let's go get this article to GA status, hey?! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
Hi, I invite you to participate in good faith at the Dispute Resolution this time. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ethnicities_in_Iran_discussion — 2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 ( talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
since you blocked it, i want you to put this link there and it will shut you all up, you will post:
nato to western ukraine is what's on negotiating table, proposed by military analyst ljupce lubek but nato is afraid to do much and they are playing putin;s game: www.google.com/search?q=nato+into+western+ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.53.15 ( talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Couldn't find the NOTFORUM barnstar! :) But, if you can keep your head, etc. All the best! SN54129 14:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC) |
ARose Wolf 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven, noticing your revert, I was wondering why. Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
Came across your recent edits. If you are further interested in topic may be you would like to join a discussion @ Talk:Superstition#Definition in lead besides I am also looking for article expansion help @ Draft:Irrational beliefs if you find topic interested in.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hcoder3104☭ ( 💬) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
"I would argue if both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, balance." Very nicely said. Unbroken Chain ( talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}
I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 ( talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?
Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP, [1] BBC, [2] DW, [3] CNN, [4] WashPo, [5], Financial Times, [6] USA Today, et al?
- EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.-- Berposen ( talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion
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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.
Elinruby ( talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR ( tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS ( talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.
Elinruby ( talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR ( tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 ( talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard? MehmoodS ( talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS ( talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 ( talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard? MehmoodS ( talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations. Michael Martinez ( talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.
I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.
For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.
Uncle G ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page. Michael Martinez ( talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations. Michael Martinez ( talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.
I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.
For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.
Uncle G ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page. Michael Martinez ( talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, you responded to that brand-new account that commented at Talk:Ivermectin just for an ad hominem argument against Alexbrn. I removed that comment, and your since it was solely a reply to the other. I hope that's ok, and feel free to revert if it's not. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
As it was indented as a general comment (rather than a specific reply to a user) it should not really have been removed as there is a tad too much soapboxing going on there. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Slatersteven an employee of the Wikipedia organization.? Odonanmarg 25 May, 2022. Odonanmarg ( talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 ( talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?
Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP, [1] BBC, [2] DW, [3] CNN, [4] WashPo, [5], Financial Times, [6] USA Today, et al?
- EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.-- Berposen ( talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy. -- Silve rije 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Slatersteven, as Azov Batallion is one of the more contentious articles within an already contentious topic area of the encyclopedia under AC/DS, the temperature there is elevated and new participants are sometimes viewed with suspicion, when they should be welcomed. Sometimes a welcome might turn out to be misplaced, but we don't know that at the outset. Disconnected Phrases is a brand new user, and other than some unfamiliarity with how we title sections and with some other of our principles, all normal for a new user, Disconnected Phrases still deserves the benefit of AGF. Whether I happen to agree with the appropriateness of the open letter by parliamentarians they raised there is beside the point; even if their presentation of the issue has some rough edges, their raising it seems clearly to be an attempt to improve the article, and comments about SOAP and NOTFORUM were out of line. I respect your comments site-wide enormously, and I suspect you may be frustrated by bad actors in the E. Europe topic generally, and at that article in particular which strains our ability to AGF, but let's try anyway, and especially, please welcome the newbies. Thanks for all you do to improve the project. Mathglot ( talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, let me express my utmost gratitude to you for having the gumption to undertake this duty. I haven't been editing on Wikipedia long, or at least not very much, but the Talk Page of that article, the jig-saw maze-like accumulation of sources - many appearing to outright contradict each other (very rarely IMO, if one simply applies WP:RS, especially the peer-review and time-sensitive aspects of our policy) - the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:OWNERSHIP sensibilities, must be an absolute nightmare for you to sift through.
Secondly, how close are you? Is there anything I can do to help?
Regards,
EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 04:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class | |
In thanks for - and to help you keep cool during - your continued patient efforts towards the ultimate goal of improving article quality in the too-often-over-heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 04:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
You're a true Hero of Wikipedia. Very selfless and brave of you. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Never seen anything like it.
Amazing stuff. Now let's go get this article to GA status, hey?! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
Hi, I invite you to participate in good faith at the Dispute Resolution this time. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ethnicities_in_Iran_discussion — 2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 ( talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
since you blocked it, i want you to put this link there and it will shut you all up, you will post:
nato to western ukraine is what's on negotiating table, proposed by military analyst ljupce lubek but nato is afraid to do much and they are playing putin;s game: www.google.com/search?q=nato+into+western+ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.53.15 ( talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Couldn't find the NOTFORUM barnstar! :) But, if you can keep your head, etc. All the best! SN54129 14:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC) |
ARose Wolf 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Slatersteven, noticing your revert, I was wondering why. Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
Came across your recent edits. If you are further interested in topic may be you would like to join a discussion @ Talk:Superstition#Definition in lead besides I am also looking for article expansion help @ Draft:Irrational beliefs if you find topic interested in.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hcoder3104☭ ( 💬) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
"I would argue if both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, balance." Very nicely said. Unbroken Chain ( talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}
I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 ( talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?
Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP, [1] BBC, [2] DW, [3] CNN, [4] WashPo, [5], Financial Times, [6] USA Today, et al?
- EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.-- Berposen ( talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)