|
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Drotaverine. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog ( talk) 12:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Kogalymavia Flight 9268. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated
vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
MilborneOne (
talk)
09:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Cпасибо за ваши правки к 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Большое спасибо за помощь. Cheers, FriyMan talk 17:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Talk:2020 Belarusian protests, you may be
blocked from editing. Please see
WP:NOTFORUM
Drmies (
talk)
00:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to spend some time on basic research on how to edit on Wikipedia, because what you're doing here and here is actually destructive: you're using the wrong citation templates, wrong dating style, half of what you're writing is not sourced, you're not paying enough attention to the grammar, including tenses, you're submitting edits with broken references, you post the material already present in the article, which means you don't check the article prior to editing, you're not positioning the references right after the corresponding material and, what is even more important, you're filling the section without any thoughts about its future length - if you continue to put so much detail into those daily updates and do it in multi-paragraph edits, the section is going to get absolutely enormous. Think about how much work other editors have to do with your material in order to make it somewhat readable and Wikipedia-like. Best wishes. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 11:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Judging by your recent edits, little has changed since the time of this dialogue: you still prefer to post unchecked material and not pay attention to how you fill the references (especially when it comes to the access-date and publisher parameters). I strongly urge you to start paying attention to these things and start fact-checking at least 50% of what you post there. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Just letting you know that copying text from the sources (as you did in this edit) is not allowed by the Wikipedia copyright policy. Please, check this out. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 00:21, 19 October 2020 (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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
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.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:Borscht that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have an issue with the behaviour of another editor, the place to discuss is it
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. --
Toddy1
(talk)
05:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A large number of fungi are saprophytes, which live on dead animals or plants, and others live on other organic materials. The fungi that generate on my wet sheetrock and wet books in my basement are clearly not parasites on other living organisms. Hardyplants ( talk) 10:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Some even live off of rocks: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/iron-eating-fungus-disintegrates-rocks-acid-and-cellular-knives#:~:text=Iron%2Deating%20fungus%20disintegrates%20rocks%20with%20acid%20and%20cellular%20knives,-By%20Eric%20Hand&text=When%20a%20hungry%20fungus%20anchors,has%20a%20plan%20of%20attack.&text=Microbial%20geochemists%20have%20long%20known,and%20physical%20breakdown%20of%20rock. Hardyplants ( talk) 10:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexandra Agiurgiuculese, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian and Romanian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
do you have references about her father's origins? -- 2.226.12.134 ( talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Please avail yourself to the Wikipedia's policies on WP:CITEing WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY - that is how the encyclopedia is built. William Harris (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lupine.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
William Harris. Your recent edit(s) to the page
dog appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please
cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
At no stage did Perri 2021 state that the dog descended from the dire wolf.
William Harris
(talk)
06:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Not knowing how to translate a word to the common English equivalent is not a reason to revert an article back to a version that includes your WP:OR in the form of WP:SOURCEHIJACKING. You may want to clarify a narrative with things you've heard, but that needs additional sources. You can always ask about language barrier issues at the talk page, rather than make irresponsible reversions. Kingsif ( talk) 15:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Deepfriedokra
(talk)
16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)I would soon propose my variant, but ask of you not to revert it ASAP because this is still very rude.- I don't think you can see, but this is poor English. Rewriting the bulk of an article like this would be reason enough to revert, before other issues. But let's get to the main issue: you threatened edit warring after trying to make yourself sympathetic, but are here assuming bad faith by saying you expect I would unnecessarily revert you. Why? And as another note, it is not inherently "very rude" to revert, undo buttons exist for a reason, and you can't assert that anyone who undoes your edits with good reason is just being rude to you. While I'm sure you have actual suggestions, especially on translation, and might argue that cool-down periods don't need to be a week, I'll defer to Deepfriedokra and ToBeFree on the approach. Kingsif ( talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Подходите с максимальной строгостью к качеству источников, особенно касающихся подробностей личной жизни. Любая оспоренная или даже потенциально спорная информация должна быть опубликована в надёжном источнике, на который в тексте должна быть сделана сноска. Спорный материал о живущих (или умерших не более года назад) людях без источников или со слабыми источниками — негативного, позитивного, нейтрального или просто сомнительного характера — следует удалять немедленно и без обсуждения.
— ru:WP:БС
@ ToBeFree: You seem to be correct about it being so harsh on living/recently deceased people's articles on WP. My example falls out of league. However I would like to bring to everyone's attention the fact that I wasn't specifically editing Tsimanouskaya's biography, but just the Incident part. Those couple of paragraphs could've been located within any other article ( Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics, for example). I did not touch that person's private life, neither did I speculate about her personal details. -- Whydoesitfeelsogood ( talk) 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
[you] simply fail to see how undoing someone's good faith edit (even if it violates, say, multiple WP policies at once) is not considered lack of editor etiquette. Again, a lot to unpack here. First, undoing a good faith edit is not a "lack of editor etiquette", even if there is nothing seriously wrong with the edit; if the edit reason is sensible (e.g. "good faith but does not add encyclopedic value"), there is nothing wrong there. With this statement you are trying to argue that it is never ok to undo someone else's edits unless they are a vandal. This is simply untrue, and even more so when, as you admit, the good faith edits violate multiple policies. You are literally trying to say that allowing every edit to stand uncontested is preferable to Wikipedia upholding its own policies, even though those policies were designed to help work out which edits should not stand. You seem to have a very misguided view on what editing Wikipedia is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not just let everybody write what they want to. This is also shown in your early plea to me that you put hours of work into editing the article. I'm sorry you wasted time, but on Wikipedia you have to prepare to have your edits usurped for an improved version, we donate our words and the 'pedia is allowed to reject them.
we both clearly have different opinions on how to build an encyclopedia, and I don't believe that your approach is more "functional" and less "fun". Like I said, there are users like yourself who think the same way and whom I will never agree with.*Sigh* for the last time, this isn't my thoughts, this is Wikipedia policy that I'm trying to explain. Even though you clearly don't like it (and maybe I don't like, huh, I haven't actually given an opinion; don't try to ascribe views to just me so you can act like it's just one person you're disagreeing with), you have to follow it. Kingsif ( talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
[1] - however incompetent, he can not leave right now, because that would be the best present to the enemy in the event of the attack (and the attack will even more likely happen if he resigns). The best one can do is to declare/conduct mobilization and stay on the ship until the very end, even if he will be captured or worse. Remember Kagemusha? My very best wishes ( talk) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Его опричников не счесть,
Пираний, вылезших на сушу,
Солдат, свою отдавших честь,
Лжецов, свою продавших душу.
Жил да был Навальный
В стороне провальной,
Патриот нормальный,
Диссидент опальный.
В той стране заборы,
Звери прокуроры,
Сроки-приговоры,
Жулики, да воры.
Но решил Алеша:
"Я людей не брошу".
В логово Дракона
Запустил он дрона.
Да и сам к Дракону
Он пришел и сдался:
Посреди Омона
Он один остался.
Стражники Дракона
Всю его дружину -
Им ведь нет закона -
В землю уложили.
На Руси великой
Так уж испокону:
У Кремлевской клики
Сто голов Дракона.
2/17/2021
Happy editing. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Marleeashton. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Shepard Fairey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Marleeashton (
talk)
08:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
|
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Drotaverine. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog ( talk) 12:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Kogalymavia Flight 9268. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated
vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
MilborneOne (
talk)
09:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Cпасибо за ваши правки к 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Большое спасибо за помощь. Cheers, FriyMan talk 17:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
Talk:2020 Belarusian protests, you may be
blocked from editing. Please see
WP:NOTFORUM
Drmies (
talk)
00:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to spend some time on basic research on how to edit on Wikipedia, because what you're doing here and here is actually destructive: you're using the wrong citation templates, wrong dating style, half of what you're writing is not sourced, you're not paying enough attention to the grammar, including tenses, you're submitting edits with broken references, you post the material already present in the article, which means you don't check the article prior to editing, you're not positioning the references right after the corresponding material and, what is even more important, you're filling the section without any thoughts about its future length - if you continue to put so much detail into those daily updates and do it in multi-paragraph edits, the section is going to get absolutely enormous. Think about how much work other editors have to do with your material in order to make it somewhat readable and Wikipedia-like. Best wishes. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 11:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Judging by your recent edits, little has changed since the time of this dialogue: you still prefer to post unchecked material and not pay attention to how you fill the references (especially when it comes to the access-date and publisher parameters). I strongly urge you to start paying attention to these things and start fact-checking at least 50% of what you post there. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Just letting you know that copying text from the sources (as you did in this edit) is not allowed by the Wikipedia copyright policy. Please, check this out. -- Nicholas Velasquez ( talk) 00:21, 19 October 2020 (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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.
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.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:Borscht that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have an issue with the behaviour of another editor, the place to discuss is it
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. --
Toddy1
(talk)
05:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
A large number of fungi are saprophytes, which live on dead animals or plants, and others live on other organic materials. The fungi that generate on my wet sheetrock and wet books in my basement are clearly not parasites on other living organisms. Hardyplants ( talk) 10:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Some even live off of rocks: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/iron-eating-fungus-disintegrates-rocks-acid-and-cellular-knives#:~:text=Iron%2Deating%20fungus%20disintegrates%20rocks%20with%20acid%20and%20cellular%20knives,-By%20Eric%20Hand&text=When%20a%20hungry%20fungus%20anchors,has%20a%20plan%20of%20attack.&text=Microbial%20geochemists%20have%20long%20known,and%20physical%20breakdown%20of%20rock. Hardyplants ( talk) 10:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexandra Agiurgiuculese, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian and Romanian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
do you have references about her father's origins? -- 2.226.12.134 ( talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Please avail yourself to the Wikipedia's policies on WP:CITEing WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY - that is how the encyclopedia is built. William Harris (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lupine.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
William Harris. Your recent edit(s) to the page
dog appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please
cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
At no stage did Perri 2021 state that the dog descended from the dire wolf.
William Harris
(talk)
06:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Not knowing how to translate a word to the common English equivalent is not a reason to revert an article back to a version that includes your WP:OR in the form of WP:SOURCEHIJACKING. You may want to clarify a narrative with things you've heard, but that needs additional sources. You can always ask about language barrier issues at the talk page, rather than make irresponsible reversions. Kingsif ( talk) 15:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Deepfriedokra
(talk)
16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)I would soon propose my variant, but ask of you not to revert it ASAP because this is still very rude.- I don't think you can see, but this is poor English. Rewriting the bulk of an article like this would be reason enough to revert, before other issues. But let's get to the main issue: you threatened edit warring after trying to make yourself sympathetic, but are here assuming bad faith by saying you expect I would unnecessarily revert you. Why? And as another note, it is not inherently "very rude" to revert, undo buttons exist for a reason, and you can't assert that anyone who undoes your edits with good reason is just being rude to you. While I'm sure you have actual suggestions, especially on translation, and might argue that cool-down periods don't need to be a week, I'll defer to Deepfriedokra and ToBeFree on the approach. Kingsif ( talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Подходите с максимальной строгостью к качеству источников, особенно касающихся подробностей личной жизни. Любая оспоренная или даже потенциально спорная информация должна быть опубликована в надёжном источнике, на который в тексте должна быть сделана сноска. Спорный материал о живущих (или умерших не более года назад) людях без источников или со слабыми источниками — негативного, позитивного, нейтрального или просто сомнительного характера — следует удалять немедленно и без обсуждения.
— ru:WP:БС
@ ToBeFree: You seem to be correct about it being so harsh on living/recently deceased people's articles on WP. My example falls out of league. However I would like to bring to everyone's attention the fact that I wasn't specifically editing Tsimanouskaya's biography, but just the Incident part. Those couple of paragraphs could've been located within any other article ( Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics, for example). I did not touch that person's private life, neither did I speculate about her personal details. -- Whydoesitfeelsogood ( talk) 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
[you] simply fail to see how undoing someone's good faith edit (even if it violates, say, multiple WP policies at once) is not considered lack of editor etiquette. Again, a lot to unpack here. First, undoing a good faith edit is not a "lack of editor etiquette", even if there is nothing seriously wrong with the edit; if the edit reason is sensible (e.g. "good faith but does not add encyclopedic value"), there is nothing wrong there. With this statement you are trying to argue that it is never ok to undo someone else's edits unless they are a vandal. This is simply untrue, and even more so when, as you admit, the good faith edits violate multiple policies. You are literally trying to say that allowing every edit to stand uncontested is preferable to Wikipedia upholding its own policies, even though those policies were designed to help work out which edits should not stand. You seem to have a very misguided view on what editing Wikipedia is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not just let everybody write what they want to. This is also shown in your early plea to me that you put hours of work into editing the article. I'm sorry you wasted time, but on Wikipedia you have to prepare to have your edits usurped for an improved version, we donate our words and the 'pedia is allowed to reject them.
we both clearly have different opinions on how to build an encyclopedia, and I don't believe that your approach is more "functional" and less "fun". Like I said, there are users like yourself who think the same way and whom I will never agree with.*Sigh* for the last time, this isn't my thoughts, this is Wikipedia policy that I'm trying to explain. Even though you clearly don't like it (and maybe I don't like, huh, I haven't actually given an opinion; don't try to ascribe views to just me so you can act like it's just one person you're disagreeing with), you have to follow it. Kingsif ( talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
[1] - however incompetent, he can not leave right now, because that would be the best present to the enemy in the event of the attack (and the attack will even more likely happen if he resigns). The best one can do is to declare/conduct mobilization and stay on the ship until the very end, even if he will be captured or worse. Remember Kagemusha? My very best wishes ( talk) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Его опричников не счесть,
Пираний, вылезших на сушу,
Солдат, свою отдавших честь,
Лжецов, свою продавших душу.
Жил да был Навальный
В стороне провальной,
Патриот нормальный,
Диссидент опальный.
В той стране заборы,
Звери прокуроры,
Сроки-приговоры,
Жулики, да воры.
Но решил Алеша:
"Я людей не брошу".
В логово Дракона
Запустил он дрона.
Да и сам к Дракону
Он пришел и сдался:
Посреди Омона
Он один остался.
Стражники Дракона
Всю его дружину -
Им ведь нет закона -
В землю уложили.
На Руси великой
Так уж испокону:
У Кремлевской клики
Сто голов Дракона.
2/17/2021
Happy editing. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Marleeashton. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Shepard Fairey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use
your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk. Thanks.
Marleeashton (
talk)
08:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)