Hello, Martina Moreau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You choose to start your Wikipedia experience from injecting your original definitions of Western and Central Europe to articles. This will not pass unchallenged. Do you have a sufficient expertise in geography? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I have studied the topic and I know that this is one of the common mistakes, so it seems like an easy start for beginners. Europe's landmass is a lot bigger than people actually tend to think- it finishes where the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus Mountains are. The centre of Europe is located in Lithuania. Still, there are adjusted cultural boundaries - for example Central Europe tends to be expanded to Luxembourg and Switzerland culturally, but generally not include Belarus and Ukraine. Simple? Yes. Ignored? All the time!
There are a lot of misconceptions. Number one - people confuse the European Union with Europe which are not the same. Western Europe (geographical term written with a miniscule) Western Bloc with Western Europe (relating to Western European Union, a military alliance now defunct). Eastern Bloc is being confused with eastern Europe (which is a sore point in Central Europe, which suffered a lot from the USSR (located in eastern Europe). The term Eastern Europe was created to respond to the Western Europe. That meant that Eastern Europe was about... 60% of Europe? In fact, cultural eastern Europe is occupied by only one country-Russia, which territory in Europe (called European Russia) is already about 40% of all Europe and adding, leaving little room for other regions, like southern Europe).
In addition, the terms Eastern Europe and Western Europe are quite controversial to use, since they relate to the Cold War, and are relegating. Above all, they are vague and geographically incorrect, so wherever it is possible, it is necessary to change it to a geographical or cultural term; not only due to political correctness but because of a more geographical and/or cultural terminology being available. What do you mean by original definitions? -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 15:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I mean that Wikipedia will not accept your original researches. Nobody cares that Czech Republic is situated thousands km to southwest from your "centre of the continent" – it is Central Europe. No political geographer cares about the "centre of the continent" at all – there is an established classification, different from calculating an (unweighted) average point of the landmass. And it is reasonable for political and economical geography: France and Low Countries are very densely populated, while most of large territories east of Vologda (in Russia) up to Urals constitute a wilderness. There is no controversy: Poles do not claim that they live in "Midwestern Europe" and Czechs do not want to be classified as "Southwestern Europe". Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so this is what you mean. Well, it is just a geographical fact that the centre of Europe's gravity is in Lithuania, according to the most established definition of Europe (Ural-Caucasus line). Therefore, central European countries are Lithuania, Belarus and so on; still Central European countries are countries in western Europe that have Central European identity (hence the capital letter-it is non-geographic). It is rather simple and I am conscious of that. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the topic. Some people would say that the Czech Republic is in Eastern Europe, which is a little bit of a mistake. The term is a source of controversy, quite rightly. It was a confusion with Eastern Bloc (an entity during the Cold War), as opposed to Western Europe (from Western European Union, now defunct; or Western Bloc). It seems to be used nowadays and I have an impression people in Central Europe tend to hate it, while central Europeans, at least Belarussians, tend to consider themselves as eastern Europeans. I am glad to see some progress in the European society. Economy is changing, therefore I wonder whether basing human knowledge on vague terms is a good idea, but certainly, you are right. The additional problem is, however, that there are more geographers in Europe than people living in the continent and everyone has own division. I hope I didn't disturb anyone by just adding the image of Europe's midpoint where it is relevant. It is very perplexing.-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the message that you left on eight users' talk pages including mine. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I know from personal experience that there are frustrations dealing with Wikipedia, and I would be happy to help and advise you, if you need it. But you probably do not need all eight of us to be helping you about the same issues at the same time. So next time, please just message one or two editors.
You will be pleased to know that I have examined some of the edits you complained about, and they are not vandalism as you suspected.
What User:Arcillaroja is doing is trying to help you. You evidently misunderstood him/her.
- [9] He/she said in his/her edit summary: "rev. NonRef POV statement = Pic". That is very helpful to you. It tells you that the image you tried to put in the article is expressing a point of view - and it is not a neutral point of view. I looked at the image and found that you created it. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. So whose point of view is being expressed in [:File:GeographiccentreofEurope.jpg|your image]]? If it is your personal point of view - then this is not the right place to express it. But if it is the point of view expressed by a notable politician, religious leader or academic, then you need to add some citations so we know where it comes from - this is called verifiability.
- [10] He/she said in his/her edit summary: "Rv controversial statement with no refs. and no connection to the rest of the article." I hope you can see that he/se is trying to be helpful. The statements he/she removed need proper citations.
Actually quite a lot of the statements in the article on Western_Europe need citations. I would think that with your background, you are ideally placed to try to find the missing citations and correct some of the errors.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Toby. I will try my best, but it appears every person in this continent sees Europe differently. There are no major definitions and the only thing we could do is to indicate countries that are always associated with a region, and divide the article into the following section: geographical definition, floral definition, historical definition, UN Statistics definition and so on. There are many but now I am probably the most busy woman in the universe :) --
Martina Moreau (
talk) 19:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In short, the consensus on these things is impossible. There will be always people disagreeing. I know it from experience. The best idea is to determine it either by giving numerous definitions in the political, cultural and economical sections, and/or determine it by going from country to country and see what the identity of the country is, ask what the people think. It is a rather complicated task.
- Thanks, Toby. I will try my best, but it appears every person in this continent sees Europe differently. There are no major definitions and the only thing we could do is to indicate countries that are always associated with a region, and divide the article into the following section: geographical definition, floral definition, historical definition, UN Statistics definition and so on. There are many but now I am probably the most busy woman in the universe :) --
Martina Moreau (
talk) 19:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi Martina Moreau! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtwfan52 ( talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Hello. You have another answer at
WP:Teahouse/Questions's talk page.
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Garamond Lethe 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Hi Martina. If you suspect systemic disruption, please report the user to AN/I with referrals to his history. And/or seek assistance from experienced users. Welcome to WP at its most hardcore. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who is an experienced user, then?-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 19:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
at Architectural style. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 16:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks :) -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
History of the Jews in Galicia (central Europe) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- are a subdivision of the [[Ashkenazim]] geographically originating from [[Galicia central Europe)|Galicia]], from western [[Ukraine]] (current [[Lvivska|Lviv]], [[Ivano-Frankivska|Ivano-Frankivsk]]
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there was no consensus for you to create Category:History of Galicia (central Europe) and move all the entries from Category:History of Galicia (Eastern Europe). Obviously, your creation doesn't match WP:NC. Just because you have an opinion on how things should be (Galicia being considered in Central Europe versus Eastern Europe) does not mean you have any right to unilaterally change it. Please revert yourself. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I did it in good faith. I've been sitting on it all my afternoon. I thought it is absolutely all right to do so, because the articles on wikipedia seemed to be falling in two directions - Galicia as central Europe and as eastern Europe, so I made it compatible with other versions of Wikipedia, which consider it central European. This designation is justified by the geography, culture, religious situation, history and other factors.--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you did it in good faith. My point is that it's not up to you to decide to move two dozen articles to a new category. Your point about the "designation being justified" is not something the community will just take your word for; you need to cite academic sources to prove your justification. Next time, rather than spend your afternoon "sitting on it", bring the question up on the talk page, post a question at
WP:WikiProject Poland and the like and see what other editors think before you charge ahead. I've nominated the category you created for deletion, so now there will be community involvement. If you like, you may
request for comment to get a wider audience of opinions on your proposal.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't expect it will cause such a massive response. It's a small region and it didn't seem necessary to discuss minor, organisational, changes. Of course I will take your note into consideration next time.-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 21:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you did it in good faith. My point is that it's not up to you to decide to move two dozen articles to a new category. Your point about the "designation being justified" is not something the community will just take your word for; you need to cite academic sources to prove your justification. Next time, rather than spend your afternoon "sitting on it", bring the question up on the talk page, post a question at
WP:WikiProject Poland and the like and see what other editors think before you charge ahead. I've nominated the category you created for deletion, so now there will be community involvement. If you like, you may
request for comment to get a wider audience of opinions on your proposal.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martina, I've adopted a gentle approach suggesting that your categories and contributions were erroneous, but made in good faith, on the dispute resolution page... but please don't labour under the delusion that I believe it to be true. I will be reverting all of the category edits you have made to western Ukrainian towns and cities. They may be in western Ukraine but that does not qualify them as being central European. It most certainly does not qualify you to make executive decisions about geographical, political or historical interpretation. Your entire user talk page reads as an indictment. Just at a glance, your ingenuous pleas of being unaware of what you're doing simply wouldn't wash if someone were to make accusations of POV push against you. Thank you for taking on board the fact that there are genuinely NPOV editors here, and for your serious awareness that you will be pulled up again if you continue to 'contribute' by flying under the radar. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
All classifications regarding nationality and geography are potentially contentious. The message here is before making unilateral changes, get consensus on your side by discussing the proposed change with others. One Editor can not decide, alone, where a country/region is located, even to match what other Wikipedias say. Reclassifications must be based on consensus decisions relying reliable sources.
Just chalk this up to a learning experience (every Editor has them). But as a note for the future, don't make major decisions without consulting the relevant WikiProjects or on article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Category:History of Galicia (central Europe), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. In regards to Category:Jews and Judaism in Galicia (Eastern Europe), please note that the proper way to move a category is through WP:CFD. -- Soman ( talk) 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Chervonohrad seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 01:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to
Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors
do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on
Kosher tax. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from changing
categories and classifications without providing a
source and without establishing a
consensus on the article or WikiProject's talk page first. Category changes to suit your own
point of view are considered
disruptive.
Iryna Harpy and I have spent hours reverting the many, many changes that you took on yourself to make and I'm still not finished. I'm sure there will be some links or text changes that we will have missed. This is time-consuming on both our parts. Please do not make mass changes without first gaining consensus.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC
- Just a quick note to reinforce Liz's observations. Please bear in mind that EdJohnston's discretionary sanctions only address the Galicia category change which was nominated for deletion. It only became evident that we'd encountered the tip of the recategorizing iceberg when following your breadcrumbs. The response to your submission to the Teahouse Q&A board in January of this year made it clear that there a protocols, policies and guidelines to follow, so you are not quite the 'newbie' you're trying to present yourself as being. Please try to be respectful of the entire community in future. In the meantime, like Liz, I also have to go back to checking over the articles you've recategorized which weren't investigated. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was harmful what you have done. You could discuss where eastern Galicia lies, but certainly Kraków is not in Eastern Europe. Nowhere I said I am a newbie. I have been on wikipedia for about a year or so. You didn't have to follow any "breadcrumps" or any other conspiracies. It is plainly written on my... profile. Thanks for demonising me. It clearly seems you have been looking for it, judging on your language.-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
"but certainly Kraków is not in Eastern Europe"
This is the problem, Martina. I live in California and to my knowledge everything east of the Brandenburg Gate is Eastern Europe. Either you or I may be right but it comes down to sourcing. Who says Krakow is in the east or the west? Neither your opinion nor mine matters; it's the academics that decide. All we Wikipedians do is hash out what the reliable sources have said, nothing more. You are welcome to start that discussion on the talk page and perhaps we can come to a consensus about it. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Chris! I live in Europe, and here knowledge about the US is very thin about the US. Many people do not know that the US is not a centralized country. I, personally, didn't know any capitals of US American states until a few years ago. Somehow there are states but they are perceived by many as purely territorial units, and many people believe that Indians in the US do not exist, or if they do, they live in tents. Obviously this is outdated, and so is the view of many people in the US about Europe.
My point is that it's understandable to have far less hands-on knowledge about Europe when you live in another continent. It doesn't mean you are ignorant. It simply means that you just were not exposed enough to the realities of Europe. I know that the US curriculum is focused on American History/Geography and barely covers Europe. That is also reasonable - there is no need for eurocentrism. Let me tell you a short story: my Harvard graduate (International Politics) friend surprised me (I thought Harvard student would know better than that) a few years ago by saying that she is very much looking forward to go to Spain and France, and she can't wait to see the micro-state between the two of them called Switzerland, famous for their cheese, chocolate and lakes which speaks Catalan (and she spoke Spanish so she was curious to hear it), or something of that sort. She made a hybrid out of Andorra and Switzerland and it's normal. This is why I try to give all my edits a lot of merit, because some people simply research a topic knowing nothing or little about it for whichever reason: out of blue, out of need or out of love. As you have seen European geography is actually causing tensions, even perfectly rational ones. In fact subdivinding Europe into regions tends not to end well. If you are interested, I have written an article about it for liberapedia once upon a time: http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Marina_Moreau/Contemporary_European_geography -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Complaint at WP:AN about undiscussed moves of Galicia (Eastern Europe)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request to revert move of Galicia (Eastern Europe). As an administrator I've moved the article back to its original name and protected it against further moves. You may add your own comment in the WP:AN discussion if you wish.
Undiscussed article moves can be disruptive since this part of Europe has a patchwork of nationalities. Wikipedia has suffered in the past from nationalist quarrels regarding this part of Europe. I'm also leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. I notice you have also been engaged in adding categories that assert some things to be in central Europe, for example, Category:History of Galicia (central Europe). I recommend that you stop this until you've received a talk page consensus to support it. You've previously been warned (higher up on this talk page) about our policies on WP:Original research.
Under the provisions of WP:ARBEE administrators are authorized to issue blocks and topic bans in certain areas of Europe when they notice that people are proceeding without adequate consensus. If you make any further page moves or change any categories regarding central Europe (prior to adequate discussion) I'm prepared to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles of interest to you are covered by sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Please carefully read the following notice:
The Arbitration Committee authorises Wikipedia administrators to impose sanctions on editors who edit pages relating to Eastern Europe. Blocks, bans on reverting edits, bans from the entire topic area, or other sanctions may be imposed for disruptive edits to pages relating to Eastern Europe.
Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. The arbitration decision affecting edits to this topic can be read here. I will record on the arbitration case decision page that you have been given this notice. You are now formally aware discretionary sanctions have been authorised and can be imposed with no further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.
See the explanation in my previous message. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was harmful what you have done. You could discuss where eastern Galicia lies, but certainly Kraków is not in Eastern Europe, sir.--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Our system expects you to find consensus for your changes. On November 16 you made more than 60 edits with the same edit summary ("the region is geographically located in central Europe. It cannot be classified as eastern European, because it is very far from the eastern border of E..") and I believe those edits were all undone by other users. This is waste of time for all parties. The right way to proceed is to open a proper discussion and wait until agreement is reached.
EdJohnston (
talk) 00:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me a hand with that?--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The best place to try persuading people is at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Renaming this article. It is possible that you actually have some common ground with the others regarding central Europe. Be careful not to imply that
you will take legal action against a certain editor or against Wikipedia, because we have a
policy of indefinite blocks for legal threats. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 01:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that the page encourages "dispute resolution". I would like to use that. Could you report her for me. I don't know how it works.--
188.79.39.190 (
talk) 14:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:Dispute resolution is a policy for resolving content disputes. It is not for complaining about editor behavior. You can read that page and check out what it says. The logical next step for you is to propose what to do at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe). Based on what others have said so far, you will need to find sources to confirm your definition of central and eastern Europe. It may also be useful to collect examples of how 'central Europe' is currently defined in various Wikipedia articles. It is possible that our articles are not 100% consistent even now.
EdJohnston (
talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martina, if you are also editing anonymously as the IP 188.79.39.190 ( talk · contribs) I recommend you stop doing that. See WP:SOCK for the policy. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:Dispute resolution is a policy for resolving content disputes. It is not for complaining about editor behavior. You can read that page and check out what it says. The logical next step for you is to propose what to do at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe). Based on what others have said so far, you will need to find sources to confirm your definition of central and eastern Europe. It may also be useful to collect examples of how 'central Europe' is currently defined in various Wikipedia articles. It is possible that our articles are not 100% consistent even now.
EdJohnston (
talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that the page encourages "dispute resolution". I would like to use that. Could you report her for me. I don't know how it works.--
188.79.39.190 (
talk) 14:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The best place to try persuading people is at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Renaming this article. It is possible that you actually have some common ground with the others regarding central Europe. Be careful not to imply that
you will take legal action against a certain editor or against Wikipedia, because we have a
policy of indefinite blocks for legal threats. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 01:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me a hand with that?--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Our system expects you to find consensus for your changes. On November 16 you made more than 60 edits with the same edit summary ("the region is geographically located in central Europe. It cannot be classified as eastern European, because it is very far from the eastern border of E..") and I believe those edits were all undone by other users. This is waste of time for all parties. The right way to proceed is to open a proper discussion and wait until agreement is reached.
EdJohnston (
talk) 00:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Renaissance architecture in Central Europe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Exact duplicate of Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe article
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Enok (
talk) 17:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Martina,
I try to improve what I can but I am afraid in that case I can not help. I am an engineer and I can not add any new information to the article. Sorry. Ato 01 ( talk) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rejedef, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. TDL ( talk) 06:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Martina Moreau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You choose to start your Wikipedia experience from injecting your original definitions of Western and Central Europe to articles. This will not pass unchallenged. Do you have a sufficient expertise in geography? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I have studied the topic and I know that this is one of the common mistakes, so it seems like an easy start for beginners. Europe's landmass is a lot bigger than people actually tend to think- it finishes where the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus Mountains are. The centre of Europe is located in Lithuania. Still, there are adjusted cultural boundaries - for example Central Europe tends to be expanded to Luxembourg and Switzerland culturally, but generally not include Belarus and Ukraine. Simple? Yes. Ignored? All the time!
There are a lot of misconceptions. Number one - people confuse the European Union with Europe which are not the same. Western Europe (geographical term written with a miniscule) Western Bloc with Western Europe (relating to Western European Union, a military alliance now defunct). Eastern Bloc is being confused with eastern Europe (which is a sore point in Central Europe, which suffered a lot from the USSR (located in eastern Europe). The term Eastern Europe was created to respond to the Western Europe. That meant that Eastern Europe was about... 60% of Europe? In fact, cultural eastern Europe is occupied by only one country-Russia, which territory in Europe (called European Russia) is already about 40% of all Europe and adding, leaving little room for other regions, like southern Europe).
In addition, the terms Eastern Europe and Western Europe are quite controversial to use, since they relate to the Cold War, and are relegating. Above all, they are vague and geographically incorrect, so wherever it is possible, it is necessary to change it to a geographical or cultural term; not only due to political correctness but because of a more geographical and/or cultural terminology being available. What do you mean by original definitions? -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 15:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I mean that Wikipedia will not accept your original researches. Nobody cares that Czech Republic is situated thousands km to southwest from your "centre of the continent" – it is Central Europe. No political geographer cares about the "centre of the continent" at all – there is an established classification, different from calculating an (unweighted) average point of the landmass. And it is reasonable for political and economical geography: France and Low Countries are very densely populated, while most of large territories east of Vologda (in Russia) up to Urals constitute a wilderness. There is no controversy: Poles do not claim that they live in "Midwestern Europe" and Czechs do not want to be classified as "Southwestern Europe". Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so this is what you mean. Well, it is just a geographical fact that the centre of Europe's gravity is in Lithuania, according to the most established definition of Europe (Ural-Caucasus line). Therefore, central European countries are Lithuania, Belarus and so on; still Central European countries are countries in western Europe that have Central European identity (hence the capital letter-it is non-geographic). It is rather simple and I am conscious of that. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the topic. Some people would say that the Czech Republic is in Eastern Europe, which is a little bit of a mistake. The term is a source of controversy, quite rightly. It was a confusion with Eastern Bloc (an entity during the Cold War), as opposed to Western Europe (from Western European Union, now defunct; or Western Bloc). It seems to be used nowadays and I have an impression people in Central Europe tend to hate it, while central Europeans, at least Belarussians, tend to consider themselves as eastern Europeans. I am glad to see some progress in the European society. Economy is changing, therefore I wonder whether basing human knowledge on vague terms is a good idea, but certainly, you are right. The additional problem is, however, that there are more geographers in Europe than people living in the continent and everyone has own division. I hope I didn't disturb anyone by just adding the image of Europe's midpoint where it is relevant. It is very perplexing.-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the message that you left on eight users' talk pages including mine. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I know from personal experience that there are frustrations dealing with Wikipedia, and I would be happy to help and advise you, if you need it. But you probably do not need all eight of us to be helping you about the same issues at the same time. So next time, please just message one or two editors.
You will be pleased to know that I have examined some of the edits you complained about, and they are not vandalism as you suspected.
What User:Arcillaroja is doing is trying to help you. You evidently misunderstood him/her.
- [9] He/she said in his/her edit summary: "rev. NonRef POV statement = Pic". That is very helpful to you. It tells you that the image you tried to put in the article is expressing a point of view - and it is not a neutral point of view. I looked at the image and found that you created it. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. So whose point of view is being expressed in [:File:GeographiccentreofEurope.jpg|your image]]? If it is your personal point of view - then this is not the right place to express it. But if it is the point of view expressed by a notable politician, religious leader or academic, then you need to add some citations so we know where it comes from - this is called verifiability.
- [10] He/she said in his/her edit summary: "Rv controversial statement with no refs. and no connection to the rest of the article." I hope you can see that he/se is trying to be helpful. The statements he/she removed need proper citations.
Actually quite a lot of the statements in the article on Western_Europe need citations. I would think that with your background, you are ideally placed to try to find the missing citations and correct some of the errors.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Toby. I will try my best, but it appears every person in this continent sees Europe differently. There are no major definitions and the only thing we could do is to indicate countries that are always associated with a region, and divide the article into the following section: geographical definition, floral definition, historical definition, UN Statistics definition and so on. There are many but now I am probably the most busy woman in the universe :) --
Martina Moreau (
talk) 19:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In short, the consensus on these things is impossible. There will be always people disagreeing. I know it from experience. The best idea is to determine it either by giving numerous definitions in the political, cultural and economical sections, and/or determine it by going from country to country and see what the identity of the country is, ask what the people think. It is a rather complicated task.
- Thanks, Toby. I will try my best, but it appears every person in this continent sees Europe differently. There are no major definitions and the only thing we could do is to indicate countries that are always associated with a region, and divide the article into the following section: geographical definition, floral definition, historical definition, UN Statistics definition and so on. There are many but now I am probably the most busy woman in the universe :) --
Martina Moreau (
talk) 19:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Martina Moreau! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtwfan52 ( talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Hello. You have another answer at
WP:Teahouse/Questions's talk page.
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Garamond Lethe 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Hi Martina. If you suspect systemic disruption, please report the user to AN/I with referrals to his history. And/or seek assistance from experienced users. Welcome to WP at its most hardcore. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 09:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who is an experienced user, then?-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 19:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
|
|
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
| Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
- -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
at Architectural style. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 16:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks :) -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
History of the Jews in Galicia (central Europe) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- are a subdivision of the [[Ashkenazim]] geographically originating from [[Galicia central Europe)|Galicia]], from western [[Ukraine]] (current [[Lvivska|Lviv]], [[Ivano-Frankivska|Ivano-Frankivsk]]
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there was no consensus for you to create Category:History of Galicia (central Europe) and move all the entries from Category:History of Galicia (Eastern Europe). Obviously, your creation doesn't match WP:NC. Just because you have an opinion on how things should be (Galicia being considered in Central Europe versus Eastern Europe) does not mean you have any right to unilaterally change it. Please revert yourself. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I did it in good faith. I've been sitting on it all my afternoon. I thought it is absolutely all right to do so, because the articles on wikipedia seemed to be falling in two directions - Galicia as central Europe and as eastern Europe, so I made it compatible with other versions of Wikipedia, which consider it central European. This designation is justified by the geography, culture, religious situation, history and other factors.--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you did it in good faith. My point is that it's not up to you to decide to move two dozen articles to a new category. Your point about the "designation being justified" is not something the community will just take your word for; you need to cite academic sources to prove your justification. Next time, rather than spend your afternoon "sitting on it", bring the question up on the talk page, post a question at
WP:WikiProject Poland and the like and see what other editors think before you charge ahead. I've nominated the category you created for deletion, so now there will be community involvement. If you like, you may
request for comment to get a wider audience of opinions on your proposal.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't expect it will cause such a massive response. It's a small region and it didn't seem necessary to discuss minor, organisational, changes. Of course I will take your note into consideration next time.-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 21:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you did it in good faith. My point is that it's not up to you to decide to move two dozen articles to a new category. Your point about the "designation being justified" is not something the community will just take your word for; you need to cite academic sources to prove your justification. Next time, rather than spend your afternoon "sitting on it", bring the question up on the talk page, post a question at
WP:WikiProject Poland and the like and see what other editors think before you charge ahead. I've nominated the category you created for deletion, so now there will be community involvement. If you like, you may
request for comment to get a wider audience of opinions on your proposal.
Chris Troutman (
talk) 21:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martina, I've adopted a gentle approach suggesting that your categories and contributions were erroneous, but made in good faith, on the dispute resolution page... but please don't labour under the delusion that I believe it to be true. I will be reverting all of the category edits you have made to western Ukrainian towns and cities. They may be in western Ukraine but that does not qualify them as being central European. It most certainly does not qualify you to make executive decisions about geographical, political or historical interpretation. Your entire user talk page reads as an indictment. Just at a glance, your ingenuous pleas of being unaware of what you're doing simply wouldn't wash if someone were to make accusations of POV push against you. Thank you for taking on board the fact that there are genuinely NPOV editors here, and for your serious awareness that you will be pulled up again if you continue to 'contribute' by flying under the radar. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
All classifications regarding nationality and geography are potentially contentious. The message here is before making unilateral changes, get consensus on your side by discussing the proposed change with others. One Editor can not decide, alone, where a country/region is located, even to match what other Wikipedias say. Reclassifications must be based on consensus decisions relying reliable sources.
Just chalk this up to a learning experience (every Editor has them). But as a note for the future, don't make major decisions without consulting the relevant WikiProjects or on article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Category:History of Galicia (central Europe), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. In regards to Category:Jews and Judaism in Galicia (Eastern Europe), please note that the proper way to move a category is through WP:CFD. -- Soman ( talk) 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Chervonohrad seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 01:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to
Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors
do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on
Kosher tax. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from changing
categories and classifications without providing a
source and without establishing a
consensus on the article or WikiProject's talk page first. Category changes to suit your own
point of view are considered
disruptive.
Iryna Harpy and I have spent hours reverting the many, many changes that you took on yourself to make and I'm still not finished. I'm sure there will be some links or text changes that we will have missed. This is time-consuming on both our parts. Please do not make mass changes without first gaining consensus.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC
- Just a quick note to reinforce Liz's observations. Please bear in mind that EdJohnston's discretionary sanctions only address the Galicia category change which was nominated for deletion. It only became evident that we'd encountered the tip of the recategorizing iceberg when following your breadcrumbs. The response to your submission to the Teahouse Q&A board in January of this year made it clear that there a protocols, policies and guidelines to follow, so you are not quite the 'newbie' you're trying to present yourself as being. Please try to be respectful of the entire community in future. In the meantime, like Liz, I also have to go back to checking over the articles you've recategorized which weren't investigated. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was harmful what you have done. You could discuss where eastern Galicia lies, but certainly Kraków is not in Eastern Europe. Nowhere I said I am a newbie. I have been on wikipedia for about a year or so. You didn't have to follow any "breadcrumps" or any other conspiracies. It is plainly written on my... profile. Thanks for demonising me. It clearly seems you have been looking for it, judging on your language.-- Martina Moreau ( talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
"but certainly Kraków is not in Eastern Europe"
This is the problem, Martina. I live in California and to my knowledge everything east of the Brandenburg Gate is Eastern Europe. Either you or I may be right but it comes down to sourcing. Who says Krakow is in the east or the west? Neither your opinion nor mine matters; it's the academics that decide. All we Wikipedians do is hash out what the reliable sources have said, nothing more. You are welcome to start that discussion on the talk page and perhaps we can come to a consensus about it. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Chris! I live in Europe, and here knowledge about the US is very thin about the US. Many people do not know that the US is not a centralized country. I, personally, didn't know any capitals of US American states until a few years ago. Somehow there are states but they are perceived by many as purely territorial units, and many people believe that Indians in the US do not exist, or if they do, they live in tents. Obviously this is outdated, and so is the view of many people in the US about Europe.
My point is that it's understandable to have far less hands-on knowledge about Europe when you live in another continent. It doesn't mean you are ignorant. It simply means that you just were not exposed enough to the realities of Europe. I know that the US curriculum is focused on American History/Geography and barely covers Europe. That is also reasonable - there is no need for eurocentrism. Let me tell you a short story: my Harvard graduate (International Politics) friend surprised me (I thought Harvard student would know better than that) a few years ago by saying that she is very much looking forward to go to Spain and France, and she can't wait to see the micro-state between the two of them called Switzerland, famous for their cheese, chocolate and lakes which speaks Catalan (and she spoke Spanish so she was curious to hear it), or something of that sort. She made a hybrid out of Andorra and Switzerland and it's normal. This is why I try to give all my edits a lot of merit, because some people simply research a topic knowing nothing or little about it for whichever reason: out of blue, out of need or out of love. As you have seen European geography is actually causing tensions, even perfectly rational ones. In fact subdivinding Europe into regions tends not to end well. If you are interested, I have written an article about it for liberapedia once upon a time: http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Marina_Moreau/Contemporary_European_geography -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Complaint at WP:AN about undiscussed moves of Galicia (Eastern Europe)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request to revert move of Galicia (Eastern Europe). As an administrator I've moved the article back to its original name and protected it against further moves. You may add your own comment in the WP:AN discussion if you wish.
Undiscussed article moves can be disruptive since this part of Europe has a patchwork of nationalities. Wikipedia has suffered in the past from nationalist quarrels regarding this part of Europe. I'm also leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. I notice you have also been engaged in adding categories that assert some things to be in central Europe, for example, Category:History of Galicia (central Europe). I recommend that you stop this until you've received a talk page consensus to support it. You've previously been warned (higher up on this talk page) about our policies on WP:Original research.
Under the provisions of WP:ARBEE administrators are authorized to issue blocks and topic bans in certain areas of Europe when they notice that people are proceeding without adequate consensus. If you make any further page moves or change any categories regarding central Europe (prior to adequate discussion) I'm prepared to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles of interest to you are covered by sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Please carefully read the following notice:
The Arbitration Committee authorises Wikipedia administrators to impose sanctions on editors who edit pages relating to Eastern Europe. Blocks, bans on reverting edits, bans from the entire topic area, or other sanctions may be imposed for disruptive edits to pages relating to Eastern Europe.
Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. The arbitration decision affecting edits to this topic can be read here. I will record on the arbitration case decision page that you have been given this notice. You are now formally aware discretionary sanctions have been authorised and can be imposed with no further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.
See the explanation in my previous message. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was harmful what you have done. You could discuss where eastern Galicia lies, but certainly Kraków is not in Eastern Europe, sir.--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Our system expects you to find consensus for your changes. On November 16 you made more than 60 edits with the same edit summary ("the region is geographically located in central Europe. It cannot be classified as eastern European, because it is very far from the eastern border of E..") and I believe those edits were all undone by other users. This is waste of time for all parties. The right way to proceed is to open a proper discussion and wait until agreement is reached.
EdJohnston (
talk) 00:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me a hand with that?--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The best place to try persuading people is at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Renaming this article. It is possible that you actually have some common ground with the others regarding central Europe. Be careful not to imply that
you will take legal action against a certain editor or against Wikipedia, because we have a
policy of indefinite blocks for legal threats. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 01:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that the page encourages "dispute resolution". I would like to use that. Could you report her for me. I don't know how it works.--
188.79.39.190 (
talk) 14:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:Dispute resolution is a policy for resolving content disputes. It is not for complaining about editor behavior. You can read that page and check out what it says. The logical next step for you is to propose what to do at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe). Based on what others have said so far, you will need to find sources to confirm your definition of central and eastern Europe. It may also be useful to collect examples of how 'central Europe' is currently defined in various Wikipedia articles. It is possible that our articles are not 100% consistent even now.
EdJohnston (
talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martina, if you are also editing anonymously as the IP 188.79.39.190 ( talk · contribs) I recommend you stop doing that. See WP:SOCK for the policy. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
-
WP:Dispute resolution is a policy for resolving content disputes. It is not for complaining about editor behavior. You can read that page and check out what it says. The logical next step for you is to propose what to do at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe). Based on what others have said so far, you will need to find sources to confirm your definition of central and eastern Europe. It may also be useful to collect examples of how 'central Europe' is currently defined in various Wikipedia articles. It is possible that our articles are not 100% consistent even now.
EdJohnston (
talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that the page encourages "dispute resolution". I would like to use that. Could you report her for me. I don't know how it works.--
188.79.39.190 (
talk) 14:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The best place to try persuading people is at
Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Renaming this article. It is possible that you actually have some common ground with the others regarding central Europe. Be careful not to imply that
you will take legal action against a certain editor or against Wikipedia, because we have a
policy of indefinite blocks for legal threats. Thank you,
EdJohnston (
talk) 01:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me a hand with that?--
Martina Moreau (
talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Our system expects you to find consensus for your changes. On November 16 you made more than 60 edits with the same edit summary ("the region is geographically located in central Europe. It cannot be classified as eastern European, because it is very far from the eastern border of E..") and I believe those edits were all undone by other users. This is waste of time for all parties. The right way to proceed is to open a proper discussion and wait until agreement is reached.
EdJohnston (
talk) 00:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Renaissance architecture in Central Europe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Exact duplicate of Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe article
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Enok (
talk) 17:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Martina,
I try to improve what I can but I am afraid in that case I can not help. I am an engineer and I can not add any new information to the article. Sorry. Ato 01 ( talk) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rejedef, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. TDL ( talk) 06:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)