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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
There are no "precise years" that a generation is born. Who would decide that? So your argument about precise years is moot. If you read the intro to the Baby Boomers it discusses that there are no precise years, yet people persist. Also, it's not edit warring because I made or added some changes --- never going over the bright line and I took the initiative to go to the opposing editors talk page first. Did they do that? No. Wikipedia does not belong to a small group of editors. The tagline is "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 ( talk) 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry maybe I was talking to the wrong person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theojaspite ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I tried closing it but someone wanted it open. Some men just want to watch the world burn.-- Loomspicker ( talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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.
You know where. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
do you have server access ? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ANovember_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690700413&oldid=690700288 70.195.64.5 ( talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you on? Allygggggg ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community decision has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Syrian Civil War and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as
November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described
here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a
one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate your clarification proposal. That's just what we need. I hope there hasn't been any bad blood. I was just trying to bring some clarity to the situation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it is okay to have the user name Osama bin Laden! And to post: >> An individual named as Sheik xxxxx is reported to have said of bin Laden, as a "really nice guy".<< Someone is simply posing with the name Salah Abdeslam → user:Salah Abdeslam - -- 84.170.80.182 ( talk) 15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your tireless work on updating and maintaining the November 2015 Paris attacks page. Keep up the good work! -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC) |
Just a heads up re this. Due to the limitations of the notification system, this correction doesn't work; the user will not receive a notification. The correct ping and your signature have to be added in the same edit. In this situation, you have to (1) add an entirely new comment with a correct ping and a new signature, or (2) self-revert and start over. 72.198.26.61 ( talk) 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Re this - so remove them, too. No way are we including the Government of Catalonia, which is where this mess began. - Sitush ( talk) 16:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting why you revert all my edits in this article, without any explanation. And always in alliance with Serdik. Interesting where are the neoclassical and Neo-Renaissance architecture that dominate the landscape in all of the old part of Sofia, but are not represented in the collage. National Theatre is an typical example about that styles and one of the most famous buildings in Sofia, but not in the mosaic for Sofia. I'm dealing with the history of architecture and photography more than 10 years ago, I have a scientific publications about that and I say that this collage is very bad as photographic composition and selection of images. Because of that I create a few mosaics and use the ideas of the other editors. And many editors support my suggestions, as ypu can see in talk page. I'm not sure, but I guess you do not know absolutely nothing about the city and its architecture. Your ally Serdik even do not know which building of what architectural style is, as seen in talk page. Instead of dialogue with other editors, you both are conquered the article and destroy all different ideas. Why the photo of a mountain is presented twice, but not during the spring and during the winter what I suggest? Actually it does not matter! I know your reasons and they are only personal. Well, you win! I promised to stop my edits of this page and I leave the article from this moment. I'm out! You win! Yes, the current mosaic and the selection in this mosaic are bad, but it does not matter because you win! The most important thing for you is your POV to win! You are who can to impose a censorship on this article. Stupid artists like me are not needed! Nobody believes in Wikipedia because of people like you, but the important thing is to impose your point of view, even by force methods. You want to remove me from the article, but I leave it from now. You win! I hope you are happy! Goodbye!-- Stolichanin ( talk) 17:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"Before we towed jet skis, motorcycles, quad bikes, big trailers filled with gifts for vacation in Morocco. Now, thank God, following God's path, we're towing apostates, infidels who are fighting us."
the See also links are altogether appropriate, yes or no? Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"...pray that Allah will break the backs of those who oppose him..." Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The quote shows as I was indicating because of the following; the comment shows implicitly (not explicitly) he considers Allah is male. You're confusing the comment of Abaaoud lacking a direct explicit reference to the apparent gender of Allah, with something which doesn't show his awareness of a gender. His comment infact shows absolutely he considerts Allah to be male. I wasn't threatening you. Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
good talking to you, maybe we will work together again another day, idk. Merci (thanks) Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, it is better to have the other photographs also, than not, because, why shouldn't they be included? It is good to see other images, the image from the front-cover of Dabiq is a strong image, it is interesting, why rely on just one image? Does one image ever show a person so fully as 2 or 3? If people want to understand as fully as possible, then relying on one source isn't a reliable situation. Aikiangelos ( talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi LjL (Re: Latest revision as of 21:07, 20 November 2015 ( Read talk page, Peter. You basically just changed the article back into what it was, except while breaking things in the process.)
I don't know what is going on with that paragraph. (final paragraph re Perpetrators). Every time I view it as READ, extraneous words and two citations appeared after the final sentence. I removed all of the paragraph, posted it into WORD, checked it and the extraneous words and citations did not appear. I made no changes and then simply re-inserted the paragraph. But the extraneous words and two citations still appeared. But I just checked it in READ now, and that is all gone. (I have no idea how that happened or who solved it, but I appreciate the help. Cheers! Peter K Burian 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous at this point. I'm not even supposed to be here today, but for that the 18 November aviation strike delayed my wikibreak. The whole WP:1RR idea whipped up by WP:Arbcom has been an abject failure; it just lets more committed POV pushers (who somehow get to ignore WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE, with complete impunity) do their thing. But ArbCom found a hammer, and so every civil war looks like a nail.
But, oh well. Illegitimi non carborundum; don't let the WP:JANITORs get you down. :) -- Kendrick7 talk 04:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ MyMoloboaccount: Hi, were you trying to tell me something? Is there another talk page I have to look at? LjL ( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
LjL : Thanks for putting up with my posts indicating that "entire sections had been deleted" (and for finding where they were moved to ... that is still difficult for me on very long articles or when the content is moved to another, related article). And thanks for the general guidance and help you have provided on the November 2015 Paris Attacks and the related Reactions article. (I have a lot of experience as an Editor of print magazines, but that is very different in format.) Peter K Burian 02:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) |
I do believe you've just broken 1RR on the article. Since the sanctions do apply to it, you might want to self revert. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ LjL: Man, this entire HTML coding is complicated.
(moved from a talk page where it was not on-topic)For that matter, I speak Italian too, which I'm sure they've seen from my user page (I might remove that user box because of incidents like this one); it's not the first time I've noticed that sometimes some Italians think that by code-switching to Italian they can, I dunno, perhaps feel "tougher" or "closer" (in a positive but also often negative way) to me. It's quite annoying and I wish they did not do that. I don't think it speaks well of them, at any rate. LjL ( talk) 03:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That janes.com link about the Su-24 radio was timely and allowed us to move forward on this issue. Very appreciated! Observer31 ( talk) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just curious why you apparently did not restore the One WTC image. The reason User:Herve Reex gave for deleting that and the Prague image was formatting, which I pointed out could have been better handled differently on their talk page [1]. Best, Castncoot ( talk) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi LjL, just a quick message - I don't think putting "see admission and threats" is a good idea, maybe just "see admission"? Just a thought -- samtar whisper 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
passing by to say hello! btw, i saw your edit on the user Shenme about a ANI. was curiosu about that.
anyways, how to tag someone? just out of curiousity and not related to what i said above. Winterysteppe ( talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added my comments at Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid. Nothing that will draw any immediate action, but drawing attention to the long-term, misdirected nature of the bad editing, and waiting for the usual eventualities.
Today I was trying to describe my worries for WP to someone, and came up with this. Remember when everyone suddenly realized that public statues were slowly melting away, and that monuments and buildings of limestone and marble were being disfigured? Even copper roofs and bronze statues were eroding far too quickly. And all because they had been thrust into a corrosive atmosphere of nitric oxides and sulfur oxides and more.
Wikipedia is in a corrosive atmosphere, with random vandals combining with idealogical vandals combining with political and corporate interests to erode pretty much every article. I don't believe an effective solution has been found yet, though *many* have been proposed. Have you seen anyone else use the terms 'corrosion' or 'corrosive' anywhere around here? As it is, there is a continual fear of what will happen next. Shenme ( talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take care/close the WP:AN, I am getting the heebie-jeebies about the other guy continuing to post and stalk me on that page. I seriously don't know what is going on and what he's talking about a week old post that he didn't like. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about Istanbul regarding the recent disputes? Sevt V ( talk) 21:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello LjL,
Please reconsider based on my responses at ANI. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_25#Germanic_peoples 95.128.118.58 ( talk) 12:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit Quest! | |
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks, the tally currently stands as delete:17, keep:9 and merge:1, with 3 days remaining. This AfD is important because, as has been pointed out, people have been slipping in lists and tables of victims into other articles about mass-casualty events. Should this AfD close with a consensus for deletion, I think it's important to extend this consensus to all articles containing such lists, (as already required by wp:notmemorial, wp:bio1e, wp:blp, wp:list, wp:victim, wp:oneevent, wp:undue, wp:n, np:notnews, wp:indiscriminate, etc., etc.) After the conclusion on this AfD, perhaps an effort should be made to have more definitive wording added to WP:NOT to specifically address these random lists of victims? As you started this process, I thought I would see what your thoughts are on this. Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the vandalism on my page by Villano MMIV. If you don't mind me asking, which blocked user do you believe they were a sock of? Thanks, GAB Hello! 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested. One day after the semi-protection of Sofia had expired a new account(registered today) along with two IPs are repetitively trying to do this again [2] and further image changes that are essential and nothing new for the article(not indicating that these are new users). They even discuss on the talk page the introduction of some images by the same uploader. One of the IP has the same contributions [3] as a persistent edit-warrior's edits [4] at Bulgarians article who seems to could not have waited for the semi-protection to expire in order to attack the article with new image changes. Before it was about the introduction of a view of a mountain excluding the city, now it is about an inclusion of some girls that are not even from Sofia or have anything to do with Sofia in one of the sections. Quite funny isn't it? Editing here is anything but not boring. I don't know what to think of this [5] and this [6]? I hope you laughed at the new nonsense. I am very tired to fill reports of the "new" user Vargala and the IP 151.237.102.118 which he acknowledges [7] is his at WP:AE for their 3RR violation today. I am also very confused where to start explaining all this, at the edit-warring noticeboard, at the sockpuppet investigations or at the semi-protections. As you are familiar with the case, I find the easiest way to be explaining all on your talk page first. Cheers. Serdik ( talk) 14:29, 20 December 2015 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
There are no "precise years" that a generation is born. Who would decide that? So your argument about precise years is moot. If you read the intro to the Baby Boomers it discusses that there are no precise years, yet people persist. Also, it's not edit warring because I made or added some changes --- never going over the bright line and I took the initiative to go to the opposing editors talk page first. Did they do that? No. Wikipedia does not belong to a small group of editors. The tagline is "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 ( talk) 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry maybe I was talking to the wrong person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theojaspite ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I tried closing it but someone wanted it open. Some men just want to watch the world burn.-- Loomspicker ( talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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.
You know where. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
do you have server access ? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ANovember_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690700413&oldid=690700288 70.195.64.5 ( talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you on? Allygggggg ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community decision has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Syrian Civil War and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as
November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described
here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a
one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate your clarification proposal. That's just what we need. I hope there hasn't been any bad blood. I was just trying to bring some clarity to the situation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it is okay to have the user name Osama bin Laden! And to post: >> An individual named as Sheik xxxxx is reported to have said of bin Laden, as a "really nice guy".<< Someone is simply posing with the name Salah Abdeslam → user:Salah Abdeslam - -- 84.170.80.182 ( talk) 15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your tireless work on updating and maintaining the November 2015 Paris attacks page. Keep up the good work! -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC) |
Just a heads up re this. Due to the limitations of the notification system, this correction doesn't work; the user will not receive a notification. The correct ping and your signature have to be added in the same edit. In this situation, you have to (1) add an entirely new comment with a correct ping and a new signature, or (2) self-revert and start over. 72.198.26.61 ( talk) 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Re this - so remove them, too. No way are we including the Government of Catalonia, which is where this mess began. - Sitush ( talk) 16:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting why you revert all my edits in this article, without any explanation. And always in alliance with Serdik. Interesting where are the neoclassical and Neo-Renaissance architecture that dominate the landscape in all of the old part of Sofia, but are not represented in the collage. National Theatre is an typical example about that styles and one of the most famous buildings in Sofia, but not in the mosaic for Sofia. I'm dealing with the history of architecture and photography more than 10 years ago, I have a scientific publications about that and I say that this collage is very bad as photographic composition and selection of images. Because of that I create a few mosaics and use the ideas of the other editors. And many editors support my suggestions, as ypu can see in talk page. I'm not sure, but I guess you do not know absolutely nothing about the city and its architecture. Your ally Serdik even do not know which building of what architectural style is, as seen in talk page. Instead of dialogue with other editors, you both are conquered the article and destroy all different ideas. Why the photo of a mountain is presented twice, but not during the spring and during the winter what I suggest? Actually it does not matter! I know your reasons and they are only personal. Well, you win! I promised to stop my edits of this page and I leave the article from this moment. I'm out! You win! Yes, the current mosaic and the selection in this mosaic are bad, but it does not matter because you win! The most important thing for you is your POV to win! You are who can to impose a censorship on this article. Stupid artists like me are not needed! Nobody believes in Wikipedia because of people like you, but the important thing is to impose your point of view, even by force methods. You want to remove me from the article, but I leave it from now. You win! I hope you are happy! Goodbye!-- Stolichanin ( talk) 17:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"Before we towed jet skis, motorcycles, quad bikes, big trailers filled with gifts for vacation in Morocco. Now, thank God, following God's path, we're towing apostates, infidels who are fighting us."
the See also links are altogether appropriate, yes or no? Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"...pray that Allah will break the backs of those who oppose him..." Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The quote shows as I was indicating because of the following; the comment shows implicitly (not explicitly) he considers Allah is male. You're confusing the comment of Abaaoud lacking a direct explicit reference to the apparent gender of Allah, with something which doesn't show his awareness of a gender. His comment infact shows absolutely he considerts Allah to be male. I wasn't threatening you. Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
good talking to you, maybe we will work together again another day, idk. Merci (thanks) Aikiangelos ( talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, it is better to have the other photographs also, than not, because, why shouldn't they be included? It is good to see other images, the image from the front-cover of Dabiq is a strong image, it is interesting, why rely on just one image? Does one image ever show a person so fully as 2 or 3? If people want to understand as fully as possible, then relying on one source isn't a reliable situation. Aikiangelos ( talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi LjL (Re: Latest revision as of 21:07, 20 November 2015 ( Read talk page, Peter. You basically just changed the article back into what it was, except while breaking things in the process.)
I don't know what is going on with that paragraph. (final paragraph re Perpetrators). Every time I view it as READ, extraneous words and two citations appeared after the final sentence. I removed all of the paragraph, posted it into WORD, checked it and the extraneous words and citations did not appear. I made no changes and then simply re-inserted the paragraph. But the extraneous words and two citations still appeared. But I just checked it in READ now, and that is all gone. (I have no idea how that happened or who solved it, but I appreciate the help. Cheers! Peter K Burian 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous at this point. I'm not even supposed to be here today, but for that the 18 November aviation strike delayed my wikibreak. The whole WP:1RR idea whipped up by WP:Arbcom has been an abject failure; it just lets more committed POV pushers (who somehow get to ignore WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE, with complete impunity) do their thing. But ArbCom found a hammer, and so every civil war looks like a nail.
But, oh well. Illegitimi non carborundum; don't let the WP:JANITORs get you down. :) -- Kendrick7 talk 04:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ MyMoloboaccount: Hi, were you trying to tell me something? Is there another talk page I have to look at? LjL ( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
LjL : Thanks for putting up with my posts indicating that "entire sections had been deleted" (and for finding where they were moved to ... that is still difficult for me on very long articles or when the content is moved to another, related article). And thanks for the general guidance and help you have provided on the November 2015 Paris Attacks and the related Reactions article. (I have a lot of experience as an Editor of print magazines, but that is very different in format.) Peter K Burian 02:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) |
I do believe you've just broken 1RR on the article. Since the sanctions do apply to it, you might want to self revert. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ LjL: Man, this entire HTML coding is complicated.
(moved from a talk page where it was not on-topic)For that matter, I speak Italian too, which I'm sure they've seen from my user page (I might remove that user box because of incidents like this one); it's not the first time I've noticed that sometimes some Italians think that by code-switching to Italian they can, I dunno, perhaps feel "tougher" or "closer" (in a positive but also often negative way) to me. It's quite annoying and I wish they did not do that. I don't think it speaks well of them, at any rate. LjL ( talk) 03:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That janes.com link about the Su-24 radio was timely and allowed us to move forward on this issue. Very appreciated! Observer31 ( talk) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just curious why you apparently did not restore the One WTC image. The reason User:Herve Reex gave for deleting that and the Prague image was formatting, which I pointed out could have been better handled differently on their talk page [1]. Best, Castncoot ( talk) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi LjL, just a quick message - I don't think putting "see admission and threats" is a good idea, maybe just "see admission"? Just a thought -- samtar whisper 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
passing by to say hello! btw, i saw your edit on the user Shenme about a ANI. was curiosu about that.
anyways, how to tag someone? just out of curiousity and not related to what i said above. Winterysteppe ( talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added my comments at Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid. Nothing that will draw any immediate action, but drawing attention to the long-term, misdirected nature of the bad editing, and waiting for the usual eventualities.
Today I was trying to describe my worries for WP to someone, and came up with this. Remember when everyone suddenly realized that public statues were slowly melting away, and that monuments and buildings of limestone and marble were being disfigured? Even copper roofs and bronze statues were eroding far too quickly. And all because they had been thrust into a corrosive atmosphere of nitric oxides and sulfur oxides and more.
Wikipedia is in a corrosive atmosphere, with random vandals combining with idealogical vandals combining with political and corporate interests to erode pretty much every article. I don't believe an effective solution has been found yet, though *many* have been proposed. Have you seen anyone else use the terms 'corrosion' or 'corrosive' anywhere around here? As it is, there is a continual fear of what will happen next. Shenme ( talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take care/close the WP:AN, I am getting the heebie-jeebies about the other guy continuing to post and stalk me on that page. I seriously don't know what is going on and what he's talking about a week old post that he didn't like. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about Istanbul regarding the recent disputes? Sevt V ( talk) 21:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello LjL,
Please reconsider based on my responses at ANI. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_25#Germanic_peoples 95.128.118.58 ( talk) 12:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit Quest! | |
Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks, the tally currently stands as delete:17, keep:9 and merge:1, with 3 days remaining. This AfD is important because, as has been pointed out, people have been slipping in lists and tables of victims into other articles about mass-casualty events. Should this AfD close with a consensus for deletion, I think it's important to extend this consensus to all articles containing such lists, (as already required by wp:notmemorial, wp:bio1e, wp:blp, wp:list, wp:victim, wp:oneevent, wp:undue, wp:n, np:notnews, wp:indiscriminate, etc., etc.) After the conclusion on this AfD, perhaps an effort should be made to have more definitive wording added to WP:NOT to specifically address these random lists of victims? As you started this process, I thought I would see what your thoughts are on this. Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the vandalism on my page by Villano MMIV. If you don't mind me asking, which blocked user do you believe they were a sock of? Thanks, GAB Hello! 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested. One day after the semi-protection of Sofia had expired a new account(registered today) along with two IPs are repetitively trying to do this again [2] and further image changes that are essential and nothing new for the article(not indicating that these are new users). They even discuss on the talk page the introduction of some images by the same uploader. One of the IP has the same contributions [3] as a persistent edit-warrior's edits [4] at Bulgarians article who seems to could not have waited for the semi-protection to expire in order to attack the article with new image changes. Before it was about the introduction of a view of a mountain excluding the city, now it is about an inclusion of some girls that are not even from Sofia or have anything to do with Sofia in one of the sections. Quite funny isn't it? Editing here is anything but not boring. I don't know what to think of this [5] and this [6]? I hope you laughed at the new nonsense. I am very tired to fill reports of the "new" user Vargala and the IP 151.237.102.118 which he acknowledges [7] is his at WP:AE for their 3RR violation today. I am also very confused where to start explaining all this, at the edit-warring noticeboard, at the sockpuppet investigations or at the semi-protections. As you are familiar with the case, I find the easiest way to be explaining all on your talk page first. Cheers. Serdik ( talk) 14:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)