|
{{ Help me}}
I inserted and removed few pictures in the Gallery section, in crop circle article. However, few hours later all the picture and changes that i made, was removed. When i went to view history there was this message - >
(Reverted 4 edits by TishoYanchev (talk): These don't add any value over what is already present. the function of a gallery is to explain the article not decorate it. pictures belong in W...)
I don't understand why my changes are removed ? I even added more see also references. Even they were removed. Why it says These don't add any value over what is already present ? Did a machine automatically removed my changes ? Or was it a real person ? Why did the person that removed it though that my pictures don't add value ?
I have done a lot of research regarding the subject, and the pictures i added was explicitly chosen. I wanted to make a point about the meaning of the crop circle, so i arranged a few pictures that i chose in a specific order. I removed two pictures that were there, because they were very random, and do not add any value to understanding the subject, in my opinion.
So, i don't understand why were my changes removed ? And not only the pictures, by the see also reference page as well ?
I added a wikipedia article of a crop circle researcher that has done a lot of research and contribution to understanding the crop circles. Why was his article removed ?
TishoYanchev (
talk)
14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
Professor Gerald Hawkins was a famous British mathematician. Before he moved to the US, he was living in Britain. He made a lot of research and contributions regarding the crop circle. He even have a books, with mathematical equations and research on the crop circles, called (Fifth Theorem). He was introduced to the crop circles, by another crop circle researcher called Colin Andrews. Colin Andrews is by no doubt, the world most famous crop circle researcher. He has done many documentaries, and written a lot of books with scientific research. Professor Gerald Hawkins was inspired by his work, and has done a lot of research himself. Perhaps the most famous contribution that he made, was decoding the first ever message that appeared as a crop circle. He had a team of mathematicians working to decode the message. The message was (oppono astos). I don't know why there is so little information about Prof. Gerald Hawkins, in his article, but anyone who research his name, will find a lot of video material with his presentations and a lot of written information as well.
I was going to also include information about researchers and video material, as well.
I added 9 images, and removed 3. Why are 9 images ( too much ) and ( completely unnecessary ) ?
I though the purpose of Wikipedia was to give information to people. How come including 9 very specifically chosen images, that will make a very good point and give a lot of information to people, ( completely unnecessary ) and ( too much ) ?
I have seen articles with more than 20 random images. The pictures i chose was very specific, and i believe very important to anybody that is searching for information about the crop circles.
I understand that you only want to prevent spamming and malicious acts, however, i think it is not relevant and not appropriate to edit any information, if you are not informed enough.
Yes, i am aware of the copyright violation. I was trying to solve that problem as well. The pictures are public domain and has been
duplicated and re-uploaded numerous times. I don't think one single (author) can be found. And also, the three images that were there,
were also public domain and i am sure, they were taken from a random website.
I didn't know how to solve the problem with licensing and copyright. I wanted to state that the pictures are public domain and do not have an owner.
Hi, thank you for your reply.
It was my first time trying to edit something in Wikipedia. I read a lot of information about how to properly upload files and license them. But obviously i still don't understand the full process.
Could you please explain me, in simple steps how to license a file or how to upload a file which does not have any license ?
The first image i uploaded was a snap-shot taken from a youtube video. Am i suppose to ask the author of the video, whether he agrees to make a snap-shot of his video ? And then what ? Must he write a .txt file with his agreement ? Even so, the author will not reply to me, since he very rarely uses youtube anymore, and i am sure even when he does, he will not bother to do anything for me. So, in such case, what am i suppose to do ? How to give a license to a snap-shot of an image ?
And if i decide to download a picture from a random website, how to license that picture ? I think regarding the crop circle pictures, i personally know several people who are in fact the author or i.e. the owners of multiple pictures that are now all over the internet, and some of those people are already dead. So, in such case, what am i suppose to do?
Please explain in simple steps how to license or upload a picture without breaking any violations.
Thank you.
{{ Help me}}
Hi,
In the article of (extraterrestrial life) i made two changes, and few hours later, both were removed. Why ?
I removed the a picture of of an animated crop circle image, because i know its fake, and therefore it cause misinformation. Then i added another article (crop circles) to the (see also) list.
Why was the picture included again ? and why was the article i added removed ?
Hi, thank you for your reply.
There are several things i don't understand. First is, why does somebody that obviously lack any information on the subject, simple removes my article and the excuse is side-effect ? If an admin or whoever removed my article, is completely uninformed on the subject, why he has the right to just remove whatever he wants ? Second, about the image i removed. I have spoken with a crop circle researcher called Colin Andrews, and he told me about this specific crop circle that he spoke with the people who made it, and with many people who saw the process, since it took several days to complete it. It should be considered as art and not crop circle much less as something related to extraterrestrial life. If my words are not good enough evidence then maybe the person who is so concern about this article should contact Colin Andrews himself and speak with him. This image is causing misinformation. I don't understand, why would somebody remove my article but not remove that image ? Obviously the person that is responsible is not informed enough.
Sorry for being too harsh.
Hi, thank you for your reply.
Just an hour ago, i added (crop circles) as an article in the (see also) list again, and again it was removed. Why ? Who is the person that keeps removing this article ? This time i didn't remove the image, i only added (crop circle) as an (see also) list article. Why its being removed again ?
Hello, I'm
Aleenf1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
2020 Summer Olympics without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Aleen
f1
03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Western culture exists is a widely accepted thing. I can agree with your statements; the term is used and abused, and, as a concept, is fundamentally wrong. But who cares about what we think. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
If you agree that the term is abused, and fundamentally wrong, then why did you reverse my edit?
Hello, I'm
Donner60. I noticed that in
this edit to
Chicago school of economics, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Donner60 (
talk)
21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that your last contributions, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Jingiby (
talk)
06:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! I have answered and replied to all the arguments and questions towards me. I did not receive any answer for 2 days, so i decided to edit again the changes that i proposed and argued for. I am not the one reversing the changes, it is you who are reversing the changes without adding any constructive argument or cooperating. You and the others just repeat the same narrative, without actually answering my questions or addressing my arguments, and you keep reverting my changes without any reason. I did my best to do all those things! My last edit covers all the demands other users had, they have not said anything against them! So why are you again reversing my edits? I am doing my best to cooperate with everyone, but are you are not doing the same. Tell me, what is it that you want? I thought my last edit covers all of your demands.
Correction, several other people expressed their opinions and disagreements, then i addressed their arguments, and explained that their arguments are not valid, i provided well argued explanation and reasoning. They did not respond back, which i take as agreement. We all must reach a consensus, since they had nothing else to say to my arguments, i take that as an agreement.
I also never said that Bulgarians are not South Slavic people, i said Bulgarians are not ONLY South Slavic people, and for that reason, it would be misleading and wrong to describe them as such. South Slavic people make up only one ancestral group of the admixture, there is no valid reason to exclude all the others, and only describe Bulgarians as one of the multiple ancestral groups. Almost all other nations have described their ethnic group in a similar fashion, for that reason, i restructured the explanation to make it more accurate, it says that Bulgarians are South Slavic group, but also Thracianss, and Proto-Bulgarians among others. This is an accurate statement, and nobody but yourself have expressed any disagreement. The argument that Bulgarians being also Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians is not controversial, it is common sense, and everybody in Bulgaria studies it. Furthermore, being controversial is not a valid argument or a criteria, Wikipedia is not a forum, it is encyclopedia for facts, i have stated the facts. Do you have any other arguments? You are the only one who keep reversing my edits, nobody else has a problem with them. Tell me what is the reason to reverse my edit?
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby ( talk) 06:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I will have you blocked unless you stop. I have been asking for your cooperation and asking you to discuss with me your disagreement with my edits, you refuse to talk with me, discuss with me what you disagree with, you ignore me, when i change the edits, you reverse them again. If you have disagreements with my edits, state them here, and let's discuss until we reach consensus. If you have nothing to say, then stop reversing my changes or else i will have you blocked. One more time and i will report you. You clearly refuse to cooperate or even talk with me.
Dear User:TishoYanchev, please read the Wikipedian qualification of vandalism - especially Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Please refrain from using warning templates regarding edits that are clearly listed as not vandalism. This is regarding this . Thank you in advance.-- Алиса Селезньова ( talk) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgarian ethnogenesis description". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 December 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgarian ethnogenesis description, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
02:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TishoYanchev topic ban proposal.
!dave
08:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, TishoYanchev. How are you? I am sorry to interrupt, but I hope some of my thoughts will find you well. I understand it's incredibly stressful to have content disputes; when you believe you are right, but unable to convince other people (not being able to discuss issues in person makes it more stressful I think). I am asking you to compose yourself; the tone of voice you are posting with right now is not healthy; please take a short break from Wikipedia and calm down, and then disinterested readers can assess the issues in Bulgarians. If you continue with the angry tone, the conversation will likely be focused on you and yourself only, instead of your content concerns. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
|
{{ Help me}}
I inserted and removed few pictures in the Gallery section, in crop circle article. However, few hours later all the picture and changes that i made, was removed. When i went to view history there was this message - >
(Reverted 4 edits by TishoYanchev (talk): These don't add any value over what is already present. the function of a gallery is to explain the article not decorate it. pictures belong in W...)
I don't understand why my changes are removed ? I even added more see also references. Even they were removed. Why it says These don't add any value over what is already present ? Did a machine automatically removed my changes ? Or was it a real person ? Why did the person that removed it though that my pictures don't add value ?
I have done a lot of research regarding the subject, and the pictures i added was explicitly chosen. I wanted to make a point about the meaning of the crop circle, so i arranged a few pictures that i chose in a specific order. I removed two pictures that were there, because they were very random, and do not add any value to understanding the subject, in my opinion.
So, i don't understand why were my changes removed ? And not only the pictures, by the see also reference page as well ?
I added a wikipedia article of a crop circle researcher that has done a lot of research and contribution to understanding the crop circles. Why was his article removed ?
TishoYanchev (
talk)
14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
Professor Gerald Hawkins was a famous British mathematician. Before he moved to the US, he was living in Britain. He made a lot of research and contributions regarding the crop circle. He even have a books, with mathematical equations and research on the crop circles, called (Fifth Theorem). He was introduced to the crop circles, by another crop circle researcher called Colin Andrews. Colin Andrews is by no doubt, the world most famous crop circle researcher. He has done many documentaries, and written a lot of books with scientific research. Professor Gerald Hawkins was inspired by his work, and has done a lot of research himself. Perhaps the most famous contribution that he made, was decoding the first ever message that appeared as a crop circle. He had a team of mathematicians working to decode the message. The message was (oppono astos). I don't know why there is so little information about Prof. Gerald Hawkins, in his article, but anyone who research his name, will find a lot of video material with his presentations and a lot of written information as well.
I was going to also include information about researchers and video material, as well.
I added 9 images, and removed 3. Why are 9 images ( too much ) and ( completely unnecessary ) ?
I though the purpose of Wikipedia was to give information to people. How come including 9 very specifically chosen images, that will make a very good point and give a lot of information to people, ( completely unnecessary ) and ( too much ) ?
I have seen articles with more than 20 random images. The pictures i chose was very specific, and i believe very important to anybody that is searching for information about the crop circles.
I understand that you only want to prevent spamming and malicious acts, however, i think it is not relevant and not appropriate to edit any information, if you are not informed enough.
Yes, i am aware of the copyright violation. I was trying to solve that problem as well. The pictures are public domain and has been
duplicated and re-uploaded numerous times. I don't think one single (author) can be found. And also, the three images that were there,
were also public domain and i am sure, they were taken from a random website.
I didn't know how to solve the problem with licensing and copyright. I wanted to state that the pictures are public domain and do not have an owner.
Hi, thank you for your reply.
It was my first time trying to edit something in Wikipedia. I read a lot of information about how to properly upload files and license them. But obviously i still don't understand the full process.
Could you please explain me, in simple steps how to license a file or how to upload a file which does not have any license ?
The first image i uploaded was a snap-shot taken from a youtube video. Am i suppose to ask the author of the video, whether he agrees to make a snap-shot of his video ? And then what ? Must he write a .txt file with his agreement ? Even so, the author will not reply to me, since he very rarely uses youtube anymore, and i am sure even when he does, he will not bother to do anything for me. So, in such case, what am i suppose to do ? How to give a license to a snap-shot of an image ?
And if i decide to download a picture from a random website, how to license that picture ? I think regarding the crop circle pictures, i personally know several people who are in fact the author or i.e. the owners of multiple pictures that are now all over the internet, and some of those people are already dead. So, in such case, what am i suppose to do?
Please explain in simple steps how to license or upload a picture without breaking any violations.
Thank you.
{{ Help me}}
Hi,
In the article of (extraterrestrial life) i made two changes, and few hours later, both were removed. Why ?
I removed the a picture of of an animated crop circle image, because i know its fake, and therefore it cause misinformation. Then i added another article (crop circles) to the (see also) list.
Why was the picture included again ? and why was the article i added removed ?
Hi, thank you for your reply.
There are several things i don't understand. First is, why does somebody that obviously lack any information on the subject, simple removes my article and the excuse is side-effect ? If an admin or whoever removed my article, is completely uninformed on the subject, why he has the right to just remove whatever he wants ? Second, about the image i removed. I have spoken with a crop circle researcher called Colin Andrews, and he told me about this specific crop circle that he spoke with the people who made it, and with many people who saw the process, since it took several days to complete it. It should be considered as art and not crop circle much less as something related to extraterrestrial life. If my words are not good enough evidence then maybe the person who is so concern about this article should contact Colin Andrews himself and speak with him. This image is causing misinformation. I don't understand, why would somebody remove my article but not remove that image ? Obviously the person that is responsible is not informed enough.
Sorry for being too harsh.
Hi, thank you for your reply.
Just an hour ago, i added (crop circles) as an article in the (see also) list again, and again it was removed. Why ? Who is the person that keeps removing this article ? This time i didn't remove the image, i only added (crop circle) as an (see also) list article. Why its being removed again ?
Hello, I'm
Aleenf1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
2020 Summer Olympics without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Aleen
f1
03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Western culture exists is a widely accepted thing. I can agree with your statements; the term is used and abused, and, as a concept, is fundamentally wrong. But who cares about what we think. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
If you agree that the term is abused, and fundamentally wrong, then why did you reverse my edit?
Hello, I'm
Donner60. I noticed that in
this edit to
Chicago school of economics, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Donner60 (
talk)
21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that your last contributions, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Jingiby (
talk)
06:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! I have answered and replied to all the arguments and questions towards me. I did not receive any answer for 2 days, so i decided to edit again the changes that i proposed and argued for. I am not the one reversing the changes, it is you who are reversing the changes without adding any constructive argument or cooperating. You and the others just repeat the same narrative, without actually answering my questions or addressing my arguments, and you keep reverting my changes without any reason. I did my best to do all those things! My last edit covers all the demands other users had, they have not said anything against them! So why are you again reversing my edits? I am doing my best to cooperate with everyone, but are you are not doing the same. Tell me, what is it that you want? I thought my last edit covers all of your demands.
Correction, several other people expressed their opinions and disagreements, then i addressed their arguments, and explained that their arguments are not valid, i provided well argued explanation and reasoning. They did not respond back, which i take as agreement. We all must reach a consensus, since they had nothing else to say to my arguments, i take that as an agreement.
I also never said that Bulgarians are not South Slavic people, i said Bulgarians are not ONLY South Slavic people, and for that reason, it would be misleading and wrong to describe them as such. South Slavic people make up only one ancestral group of the admixture, there is no valid reason to exclude all the others, and only describe Bulgarians as one of the multiple ancestral groups. Almost all other nations have described their ethnic group in a similar fashion, for that reason, i restructured the explanation to make it more accurate, it says that Bulgarians are South Slavic group, but also Thracianss, and Proto-Bulgarians among others. This is an accurate statement, and nobody but yourself have expressed any disagreement. The argument that Bulgarians being also Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians is not controversial, it is common sense, and everybody in Bulgaria studies it. Furthermore, being controversial is not a valid argument or a criteria, Wikipedia is not a forum, it is encyclopedia for facts, i have stated the facts. Do you have any other arguments? You are the only one who keep reversing my edits, nobody else has a problem with them. Tell me what is the reason to reverse my edit?
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby ( talk) 06:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I will have you blocked unless you stop. I have been asking for your cooperation and asking you to discuss with me your disagreement with my edits, you refuse to talk with me, discuss with me what you disagree with, you ignore me, when i change the edits, you reverse them again. If you have disagreements with my edits, state them here, and let's discuss until we reach consensus. If you have nothing to say, then stop reversing my changes or else i will have you blocked. One more time and i will report you. You clearly refuse to cooperate or even talk with me.
Dear User:TishoYanchev, please read the Wikipedian qualification of vandalism - especially Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Please refrain from using warning templates regarding edits that are clearly listed as not vandalism. This is regarding this . Thank you in advance.-- Алиса Селезньова ( talk) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgarian ethnogenesis description". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 December 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgarian ethnogenesis description, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
02:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TishoYanchev topic ban proposal.
!dave
08:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, TishoYanchev. How are you? I am sorry to interrupt, but I hope some of my thoughts will find you well. I understand it's incredibly stressful to have content disputes; when you believe you are right, but unable to convince other people (not being able to discuss issues in person makes it more stressful I think). I am asking you to compose yourself; the tone of voice you are posting with right now is not healthy; please take a short break from Wikipedia and calm down, and then disinterested readers can assess the issues in Bulgarians. If you continue with the angry tone, the conversation will likely be focused on you and yourself only, instead of your content concerns. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)