Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Saddhiyama. 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 |
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You asked for references that refer to the event as a war. I provided four sources, and I could have provided more. Now, you're trying to create a stupid technicality? Are you serious? B-Machine (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For rendering exceptional assistance at the Help desk. Cheers! —Eustress talk 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC) |
I am sorry If I have made a mistake. I removed it when I noticed, that the article has been improved and rewritten several times since the template was added, so maybe it is no longer necessary? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be very grateful if you could tell me what your problem is. Thanking you in advance.Harrypotter (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Any idea why he would use your username here? (Towards the bottom) --S.G.(GH) ping! 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see, Anthony seems to have sorted it now anywho. Thanks, S.G.(GH) ping! 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
of possible interest --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My supposed edit of this person, I'm sorry but I've never even heard of this person never mind looked at his wikipedia page. During the supposed time of this edit 20th July, the internet wasn't working in our house, our hub was broken and we had no access, so quite how someone was able to access the internet using this IP I don't know. Very strange. I can assure you, it wasn't from someone in our house. Our connection is encrypted as well. Could the IP have been assigned to someone else during this period due to the internet not being active in my house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.159.89 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit: Just checking through past edits. Up until 18th of August our household IP address was 86.134.153.191, you can view my recent edits and it's only since some period beyond the 18th of August has the IP address of my house been 86.134.159.89. So on July 20th, the IP 86.134.159.89 did not belong to our house and was someone elses.
Thanks for tagging Max Chopper Liebow just now; but there is a better way to do it. For an attack page, what you should do is blank the whole page (to get it off the screen quickly) and replace it with {{db-attack}} - or {{db-atk}} or {{db-g10}} which are equivalent. That puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and also generates a suitably fierce warning for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. Generally, for speedy deletion nominations, you should use one of the standard templates like {{db-person}} or {{db-band}} or {{db-copyvio}} which are listed at WP:CSD. If there isn't one that fits, then the page is probably not speediable and may have to go to PROD or AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, I know that the edit we're fighting over isn't exactly productive but Rcool35 is not an editor per say. He is a banned vandal who has done many malicious edits to hip-hop articles and articles pertaining to the Mexican War. His user page and the link in my IP linking directly to a list of IP's he uses should be useful. I'm generally warry of his edits because most of the edits to articles pertaining to the Mexican War are not helpful or useful at all, even the edits he does to hip-hop articles mainly contribute of edits that violate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NPOV. He's even threatened to be affiliated with the Mexican Gangs and kill me.
Looking back, I did not realize that the edit I reverted too was vandalism, so I guess it's not Rcool35. However, he is not a Wikipedia user per say, he is a vandal who ultimately hinders Wikipedia and shows no signs of ever being a community member anytime soon. Again, sorry for the inconvience. Taylor Karras (talk | contribs | Rcool35) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
When you delete a response of mine (), could you please leave a not on my talkpage, so that I know where it went, who deleted it, and why? Thank you. Buddy431 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know I've decided to remove my words about Shias in that discussion.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was just seeing whether people would be blinded by the references. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Tolerance of error is not nonsense. The are many scientific studies that have a margin of error. Tolerance allows for many errors. I would appreciate you reverting the change you have done to the post on Tolerance on Sunday, September 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.195.38 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for informing me of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have posted a response. --Tiiischiii (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for speedy-tagging this. Most detected hoaxers just fade away, but this one actually asked why it was deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The overview section on the article Catherine II of Russia was not needed, and I will post a valid reason for deleting it. Please don't revert it again. --Calthrina450 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I really liked your statement of the reason for volunteering on Reference Desk: the enjoyment of acquiring and sharing knowledge. That's exactly right! My feeling exactly. Marco polo (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for adding text to Peter Collett (writer). That's a good thing. However I used a specific source and when you inserted text right before it, it now looks like all of the information comes from that source. Which it does not. But I went ahead and fixed it. And oh, thanks for making the category too. Geschichte (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
What does "OP" mean? Does it mean "operator"? HeyMid (contribs) 12:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's OK that you removed my answer, although it had some proper link it to a relevant article. Quest09 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That works better. Do you reckon it may even be worth listing the case in the introductory paragraph? Egg Centric (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The passage in dispute is unsourced and controversial. If an unsourced passage comes into dispute you should delete it first until the original writer comes with a reputable source. -- Baiyaan (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)baiyaan
I confess that I do not understand your reasons for undoing my edits on the history of touch screens. You state "We need reliable secondary sources for this claim, not primary sources". Perhaps we have a terminology problem here. Secondary sources are hearsay. Primary sources are the original source. So, despite my citing two articles from the peer reviewed literature that clearly extablish the history and precedence of invention, you choose to give priority to information based on a secondary (that is, hearsay) source from a journalist who got her information verbally, with no documentation, from a sales person from a company started by the person who was previously (and then restored by you) credited with invention 6 years after the actual invention appeared in the literature.
I do not understand. But, perhaps it is because my wording was not clear. Based on that assumption, repectfully, I have undone your your UNDO, and then editted my text so as to more clearly cite and explain my primary sources.
What I would ask is that if you are contemplating reverting back to the previous text, that you first contact me <email redacted> in order to explain your rationale.
Be clear, we both want the same thing: for the entry to be as accurate as possible, with what is stated backed up by credible references that support the assertions made on the page.
Thanks. Bill Buxton Wasbuxton (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Points well taken. I have a magazine reference to the system that is not written by the inventor and will add. All the best. Thanks. Bill Buxton Wasbuxton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
The basic definition of intellectual is incomplete and needs to be changed. If you do not like my addition than please write it in your own words but intellectual is commonly referred to an intelligent thinker without experience. A doctor would not be an intellectual since the doctor has a profession. One that is not a doctor but thinks intelligently about medicine would be an intellectual. Thanks.
Btw, Im an intellectual and not a professional in many fields so Im very knowledgeable of the definition at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I have done what you asked. You can read my point in the discussion. Gregghouse (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Even after warning & blockage, this user is still editing Tamil Kshatriya page without any discussion. It is not normal... Is it possible to fully protect this page (in its initial version) ?Rajkris (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for our message and apologies for terse posting. My question is specifically related to the article content: why are France and Spain not in blue font on the map? Brownturkey (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(I moved it here from the AFD since you weren't commenting on the article)
Borchin cheating news was a mistake. The names given of the cheaters initially named Borchin but it was actually Viktor Burayev who was caught for cheating. Hence the news initially named Borchin as one of the race walkers banned.
Initial reports were WRONG.
http://olympics.scmp.com/Article.aspx?id=2747§ion=latestnews
The 3 banned walkers were: Kanyakin, Burayev and Voyevodin. This directly relates to the 2008 doping incident hence why Borchin was allowed to compete and keep his medal.
This information on the page is highly speculative. If he was doped he would have been banned. Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrosian63 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Donno what happened there. I didn't mean to step on your toes there. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You deleted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides#Worldpremiere_Johnny_Depp_12.05.2011_Westfield_London? 62.200.86.169 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
hi. By doing what you did, you were arguably in violation of WP:Bold and WP:OWN. And the general recommendation of simply NOT reverting simply because you personally don't like it or "don't think it's necessary." If it's a) good-faith, b) accurate, and c) sourced (I was planning on putting references to that soon), then technically just blatantly reverting just because of personal taste is arguably a violation of WP policy. The suggestion is simply NOT to revert. Especially without discussing it. You don't own this article, so it does NOT MATTER that you don't think a table or timeline is "necessary". It's already understood that the facts and and points are in the rest of the article. NO KIDDING. So what? I'm well aware that they're all in the rest of the article itself. But for a quick run-down and reference, for casual readers, or those who may not have time to mill through whole article...something like that is arguably useful. What's the big problem with it, to warrant disrespectful deleting of hard work in putting it there? The fact is deleting is actually against WP policy without talking first... Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I just thought you might want to know that your *correct* reverts have been complained about. Naraht (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The movies were Mr. Popper's Penguins and Zookeeper. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've witnessed something i can relate as WP:OR and WP:OWNER on this page, possibly by user named B-machine, who didn't answer my clarification request on his edits. What was your experience and outcome of editing the page? See here .Greyshark09 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hej Saddhiyama - We have just been "talking" on the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) page about Fredericksværn, which was very interesting as an example of information "Lost in Translation", and for which many thanks. I also see your main page is Danish, whereas my Danish is only passable.
Can I ask for your experienced eye to look at my first ever article for Wikipedia viz. HMS Falcon (1802) which has a link to numerous transcribed sources at Falcon's website. I feel that there is a lot of good stuff in Falcon's website that could mature into a good article in Danish, if I could interest you or anyone with whom you have contact. I live in hope of seeing this work expand into wider knowledge. Comments and questions welcome. mvH Viking1808 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hej! Superfast service these Danes give you! The article can now be read on Danish Wikipedia as HMS Falcon (1802) thanks to User:Necessary Evil. He jokes about English propaganda, but translating and balancing both sides of the story needs care. Mange tak mvH Viking1808 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So because I've been on Wikipedia for over 4 years as an IP and then as Camelbinky and because I'm very active on creating/editing policies and guidelines and keeping the WP:5P in their proper place, and working at the Village pump proposals and policies pages, and at the OR/N and RS/N all of which are integral to creating and wording policy you think it is wrong of me to mention that I was instrumental in changing and aspect of policy and therefore know intimately what it is meant?! I think it was important to state since the editor I was disagreeing with kept saying I was misinterpreting policies. Policies I worked on getting the wording to where it currently is at. I dont take full credit, it was a team effort of back and forth and compromising. Policies are constantly evolving and may be used in ways the group of us that wrote (or re-wrote) them ever thought. And that's fine. But I wont stand for someone to say I'm misinterpreting or that my interpretation is illegitimate when I was there at the talk page working hard for weeks or sometimes months coming up with a compromise to get wording to reflect as accurately as possible the current prevailing method of doing something.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The reason I had the mention of circulation of newspapers in India in the Advertising section is because the article (and the American and British public, I believe) tend to see the current state of the newspaper business in the US and UK vis a vis the internet, and assume that this is the case world-wide. I edited the article after hearing Tom Standage interviewed on a local radio station, where he pointed out that readership in India is increasing, whereas in Brazil (where, apparently, a higher percentage of people have high-speed internet than in India) it's been increasing but is now on a plateau.
If you are knowledgeable about newspapers in India, or know somebody who is, I think it would be useful to add some information on that. This article is much too Anglo-centric. Bloody Viking (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not noticed that the French revolution -chronology - has dedicated page, I'm accepting your point.--Stephfo (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! I would like to point out that in my last edit on the 2011 Norway attacks article I did not delete anything. Please read the whole revision summary next time. Cheers. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)[1] 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) All is in order. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)[1] 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You're saying we should add Breivik's political beliefs, but he has hundreds! How is it possible to add them all?! Would you also support adding that he supports the following political movements: NDL, EDL, the International Freedom Alliance, the Army of Republika Srpska, Knights Templar, Crusade terror organizations, Democratic Party of Japan, Sixth Republic of South Korea etc. and many more. Are you willing to add them all to the lead? Imagine what the lead would look like if we added all that to the intro? It does not make sense to add zionism to the lead Pass a Method talk 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I edited the article and I'll add some cites. Cheers.--俠刀行 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
"If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past. (p. 1344)"
This is a quote from Breivik manifesto, which has been removed many times by the Christian activists on the page, who are trying to withhold that Breivik was a Christian using as sources articles from Fundamentalist Christian media such as FoxNews. Please restore my edits. --79.31.25.106 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, The new Safari is kinda fucked up so that was an error :S Sorry again -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to tell me what is POV about this edit ? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
it would be impossible to have a 2nd source also be the first known use, it would naturally be the 2nd known use. also, since there is no earlier mention of the term in the history section, it would be the earliest known in wikipedia. either way, the burden is on you as the deletionist to make your case the edit was not, the 1st known use. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
--Doug Coldwell talk 11:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse for former vandalizing your site. 85.17.190.71 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Saddhiyama, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. If it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to comment in the informal mediation thread that I started at Talk:Nazism#Informal mediation? As one of the main contributors to the article, we really need your input to have a good chance of resolving the issues there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my English. My question, a person who is Mr.User:JuJube, was dead over 1 year. How did the wikipedia system identify his death?--俠刀行 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Saddhiyama, your edit adds a statement that the burial mound at Ammelhede is from the bronze age and implies that it therefore could not be the burial place of Saxo's Amleth. While the mound may or may not be the burial place of Saxo's Amleth, the implication of the edit is misleading because there are well-documented cases of bronze age burial mounds being re-used for new burials in Denmark during the time frame in which Amleth is supposed to have lived according to Saxo. A sentence noting such re-use was added with a citation to a reputable source, but you then deleted that sentence and the citation leaving just your own sentence. Please reconsider the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.242.210 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You posted a warning on my talk page about deleting content from the Deism page without posting a good reason in the edit summary. But I did explain myself in the edit summary. Go take a look. --71.203.94.83
Calling SIOE a Hate organization is no more "personal" then calling Al Qaeda a Terrorist Organization see refs of sister/partner group in America:
www.adl.org/main_Extremism/sioa.htm
www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/25/2011-02-25_southern_poverty_law_center_lists_antiislamic_nyc_blogger_pamela_geller_follower.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.stevenson3 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Saddhiyama. I was just about to start manually removing those four edits to Voltaire's life when you did it wholesale. Would you mind letting me in on how to do that? Thanks, Awien (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of this claim. It is widespread, and I have now added 4 references to it. It's not unlikely that someone wanting to check on this claim would come to Wikipedia to verify it.--Dmol (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
At WP:AN Here--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please be careful This edit summary simply reads "rvv" which in my experience is short for "reverting vandalism." If that is what you meant, you are mistaken--the previous edit was not vandalizing the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
he is a peice of shit wasting other people's time. he needs to be told.
Hi, how did you call your wife's father and mother in English? Other case, how about your husband's father and mother (if you're married and have to call them someday)? It's all different in Chinese, indonesian and some other Asian languages.--俠刀行 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi you added the "does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music" to Sexy Zone's page however they do acoroding to WP:MUS meet several of the criteria including: 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.' The group have been featured on the cover of mutiple popular japanese magazines including Myojo, Popolo and duet. They also meet this critia: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." At number 1, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" The group has been heavily featued on both a show about the vollyball world cup and A cable reality show.
I think the article could have better refrences, since most english info on the is only fan info, but I think they count as notable. So can I take out the WP:MUS sign? DSQ (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll move this thread. Thanks for the help. :) DSQ (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I followed the link to the vandalism templates you mentioned. There are like a bazillion of them. Is there an easy way to use these things or do you have to memorize them all? I'm happy to try and use them but at first glance they seem rather daunting. Any advice? --News Historian (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please look at the new section Steen Andersen Bille on my talk page. You may be able to help me! Viking1808 (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I reverted my edit on Public sphere back. Not feeling like we're on the same page about your rationale for reverting it within mere hours of the edit.
First of all, you say my edit "did not appear to be constructive"? It appeared to be very constructive. Even without checking the factual validity of my edit, on the surface, just from the appearances of it, it didn't look like vandalism at all. I was changing a link to an existing article, not a red link, and the photo caption mentioned a "tea protest" and the link was to a page with "Tea Party" in the title. So, whether or not my edit was academically accurate, I take issue with the claim that it appeared to be vandalism. To someone just glancing at the edit, it would appear perfectly acceptable.
Now, to go a little deeper, not only did my edit not appear to be vandalism, but it wasn't vandalism. The picture illustrates a historical drawing of the women who participated in the 1775 Edenton Tea Party. Not the Boston Tea Party, as the link suggested, but the simultaneous Edenton Tea Party, which (as the picture's caption stated long before my "vanadalism-appearing" edit) occured in Edenton, North Carolina, not in Boston, which is in Massachusetts. For your information, Boston wasn't the only Tea Party, as whoever linked that caption before me assumed. And I can almost understand you assuming I had made a mistake...if the link I put in had been red. But it wasn't, it was a blue link, to an article about a Tea Party other than Boston, proving they existed. You just chose not to see if I was referring to the correct one in my edit. Spoiler alert: I was. In fact the article I changed the link in the caption to actually includes that exact same picture, which you might have noticed if you went to the picture's file page...maybe you did, maybe you didn't, I'm guessing not or else you would've noticed the connection between the page I linked and that picture, and then you wouldn't have ended up thinking it "appeared to not be constructive".
Now usually I wouldn't have gone through the trouble to explain exactly why I chose to reinstate an edit of mine, but you see, I'm not new to Wikipedia, as that condescending "welcome to Wikipedia" introduction might have assumed. No, been here for years, just haven't edited much lately...but in this one case I decided to correct an error, just a tiny little addition, hoping someone might appreciate it. But instead what seems to be the first person to notice it took it for vandalism and deleted it. Hardly a welcome return. So, not to be rude, I know Civility is one of the five pillars. But it's hardly civil on your part to delete a legitimate edit of an experienced editor, ignore that experience by "welcoming" them to Wikipedia, and then patronizingly suggest they take their helpful-editing ways to the Sandbox...it just rubbed me the wrong way, you know? Anyway. Sorry if I've taken up your time, though you probably didn't bother to read this whole message. Frankly the only bigger waste of time than me writing it would be you reading it. But c'est la vie. Anyway, don't revert it back, please and thanks. 50.72.242.31 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a few seconds, I'm introducing links to appropriate references. Btw, I live in Naples...--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a standard template or method for adding a link to viewing directions for a page? Like how to turn off images in browsers for Islamic viewers of certain pages. The topic comes up so often and it seems a suitable solution. Alatari (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, will try that. Ty Alatari (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
what do u know of sikhism or famous sikhs,being in the habbit of reverting everything that u don't like is ur problem not mine. Also show this attitude somewhere else, not on me. What i edited was 100% right and was required for cleanup and maintaining correctness of the article.I am born and brought up in punjab and i'm here from last 25 years, Who the hell are you to decide what's wrong and what's right. Go and do some research first on sikhism and then talk to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmalabs (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You have a new message at Talk:Sikh#Unexplained_deletions. --v/r - TP 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Nice to see you. Here are some unfriendly guys that I don't want to stay on English wikipedia.
But I feel glad to meet you. so maybe we keep in touch on somewhere like Simple English wikipedia? Finally, thanks you for helping me these months. A lot of thanks.--俠刀行 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
However, I just copy same conetent from this user. I think this content is exactly match with china. --Fc57zj (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your diligent work on Your Favorite Enemies, I hereby award you with the Cleanup Barnstar! SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
Please read the talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning 8digits (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure as to your reasoning behind judging my citation as not credible. This source has been used numerous times on the page already and is one of the leading biographies on Saint-Just. Did I format the citation incorrectly, or is it some other issue with the citation? Thank you, HIS30312CaitlinI — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS30312CaitlinI (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The source was the Wikipedia article on Frederick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.222.168 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rgen_Thygesen_Brahe you could have done that yourself instead of deleting my edit and wasting my time
173.65.222.168 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I boldly merged these articles uncontroversially in line with Wp:Merge because the two articles quite obviously describe the same thing. While I do not object to the reversal of my edits in itself, I don't quite see the point unless you actually see some substantial reason not to merge them.
You also reverted my previous edit, which was a distinct and relevant removal of an intrusive piece of text, and I don't see why you should revert that without discussion, as if it were vandalism, without asking regardless of what you think of the merge. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This is regard to some other post (Dictatorship) in which you reverted my change by removing Saudi King from the list. It was long ago but i noticed it recently only. If Monarchy without any democratic setup is not dictatorship, what in the whole world is? Please explain your rationale soon that I could revert your change. Also there was a discussion in the talk page regarding Abdullah. You didn't care to put your reasons there!! - 122.160.141.4
Helloo i readed your respond. my question if can writh this Paragraph if If i typed again in academic literature on this subject can i add it or still will had problem i will write in the talk:christianity when i finish it. Jobas (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Baruch Spinoza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It's obvious that Natkabrown is a newcomer and that she wasn't aware of WP:NOTCENSORED nor WP:NLT. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE we are required to treat her with respect. Accusations to block her before any attempt to explain her the behavior guidelines is failing to take care of newcomers.
Saddhiyama asked me to elaborate how Natkabrown has been bitten. This revertion of her posting is against Talk page 'other comments' guideline. Her post was not "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism". Moreover, she was adviced to post her comment here by another editor. Moreover, there is consensus at the Administrators noticeboard that her wasn't a legal threat. See a pattern? Her behavior would be disruptive if she was an experienced Wikipedian, but as a newcomer we should inform her not to repeat those accusations, and we should evaluate her request on its own merit. A personal persecution on her is forbidden by WP:BITE. Diego (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice the difference between these two maps:
Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 526: Unable to find the specified location map definition: "Module:Location map/data/DenmarkCIAx" does not exist. |
They don't show the same location. I think we should probably go with the map that shows the bridge in the correct location. We can always add a few pins for cities, but not having the correct location is just wrong. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your continued removal of appropriately sourced information from the Rollo article is unacceptable. The same given sources are widely used and accepted in Wikipedia elsewhere. The sources pertain to Rollo's origins, not "Kvenland".
The newly added information does not contradict the other information provided in the same segment - in contrary. If anything, the un-sourced material ought to be tackled by you. Johansdotter (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You know, I'm not so sure about "obvious". I have seen ridiculous things before that turned out to be entirely true when you tried to disprove them.
Our first Kyle Holland hoaxer is in Yonkers.
The second Holland hoaxer is a school in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
You personally zapped these guys at the time, December 2009.
Then Yonkers came back for a retry.
But a 3rd vandal appeared. You got distracted by him, allowing Yonkers a clean getaway.
So the "obvious" hoax text has been there for over 2 years.
The web shows a high school football player named Kyle Holland at that time in eastern Pennsylvania.
So Yonkers and New Jersey have a buddy in Pa. they know from football camp?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC) (Toronto)
the grover norquist article has the correct citation and you still removed it. please stop following my edits, what is your problem? Analog 9 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
i wasn't LITERALLY advocating murder, i was making a rhetorical point. but i understand how you could have interpreted it that way, no big deal, take care. Analog 9 (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
What's your problem? You are removing people's edit without giving a evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.10.59 (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
WE WANT BLOCK OF SADDHIYAMA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your Group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PumpkinSky Administrator in talk VSmith... Formerly User:Rlevse/user:Vanished 6551232. Currently indefinitely blocked, but not banned, by community consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PumpkinSky The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vsmith (retired) "torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) BUT HIGH SCHOOL NOT University of Arizona. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vsmith#Frohliche_Weinachten_und_Gluckliches_neues_Jahr
Blockades are attacks under war law and was all the time unjustified and isn´t a reason itself for just deleting 1A contributions in WP ! We dont want and need you there as community of readers and writers ! We ask for right to fight real against you attacking+staying there ! You are blocking between communication with others our living room ! eWp international exchange base not personal meaning administrators and eWP has so no right to call istelf an encyclopedia or calling for honouring money beacause of common interest if just nonsense inside. Can you proove that people outside WP didn´t want Yggdrasil like that ? CONTENT WAS MOST JUST TRANSLATION FROM gWP AND NOTHING THERE FROM YOU ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.114.90 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I`m also sorry understanding very well that you are enemy to be fucked after you atacked first ! Your serios ? unpaid unnecesary administrator friends in WP ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PumpkinSky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConradMayhew WITH MANY NAMES BUT NEVER REAL WORKING ?! AT Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents WITH BEST TABLE INSIDE LONG BEFORE LIKE 4 CHARTS+PICTURES+DELETIONS+CORRECTIONS+TEXT ADDINGS with gWP here clearly much better but not at neutron capture and missing hafnium diboride and zriconium carbide and both HfN but inside russian WP should be work of admistrators also to simply transfer the content ! NEW SELFMADE COMPARISON TABLE WITHOUT REFERENCES MUCH WORSER OLD JUST TRANSFERED ADDING and reason for blocking nonsense else all the time 10% or same level chernobyl discussion. TABLE RESCUED OUTSIDE again added inside ! ALL THE TIME INSIDE and ouside same level chernobyl or ankles radiation 2000-600mS nonsense "Much of the help and decontamination work could be done by AREVA France with boron acid, shutting down one reactor, protection suits, measurement equipment, generators, filters; by more than 1000 men with own first-hand help and information offered.[383] WITH TABLE" ALSO FROM MYSELF ADEDD Seawater-contamination along coast with Caesium-137, from 21 March until 5 May (Source: GRS) Measured dosis at atomic plant border area from 12. up to 17. March Position of Japanese atomic plants and spreading of tsunami Radiation measurements from Fukushima Prefecture, March 2011 BUT PLACEMENT ON SIDE OF SECTION TABLE WAS BETTER BEFORE WITH MUCH PLACE LEFT THERE ! MUCH ADDINGS FROM BEFORE MISSED AFTER DELETIONS ALSO NEW LONG SERIOS REPORT IN TALK !
I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the lack of summary on my edit. I'm using a droidpad, so the interface gives me trouble sometimes.
The edit shouldn't have been reverted, however; it was more than just a deletion. The information had clearly been copied from a bad textbook which made the explanation very difficult to follow. I reworded it and removed the cruft. (e.g., "(think percentage)" right after it explains that the device senses voltag proportion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.102 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I am beginning to think that you have a fixed and incorrect view as to the origins of the Lego brick design and are drunk at the wheel; thanks.
Reference to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120(Defence.lk), I have added the Tags "Single Source" and "POV" on Lies Agreed Upon.
Since you are involved on the above discussion, please discuss further on regarding the Tags added and the reliability of the content on Wikipedia based on the single major source.Sudar123 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why you made this revert. You have reverted to a significantly inferior version of the article. Risker (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I can see that you have reverted a contribution made by user:Jamesluxley on the article Frederik's Church. I just want to warn you that this user may be an old "villain" Haabet from the Danish wikipedia, a user who is known as being false positive while inserting nonsense. Please keep an eye on him! -93.160.114.90 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I made an unsourced edit to the banned books article in January 2011 which you reverted. I made the edit again with a proper source, I think. (But I forgot to explain the change, sorry!) Thanks for your vigilance. (Meiselface (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for the help at "Mein Kampf." Bytwerk (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, do you know anything about the burial of Eric Christoffersen of Denmark? This source says he was buried in Sorø Abbey, but St. Bendt's Church list him as buried there with a picture of names to prove it. Did Eric's body orignally rested in Sorø Abbey and was moved to St. Bendt's? It seems weird that the bodies in Sorø Abbey were moved to two different churches St. Bendt's and Roskilde Cathedral? Is there anywhere on the web where one could actually find out the exact occupants of these three tombs currently, today, because a lot of moving seems to have happen since these monarchs's burial.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I asked this on humanities ref. desk.
but further google searching for Lohheide bei Schleswig comes up with a website which reads "Am Deckerkruge bei Schuby, in der Nähe der Lohheide bei Schleswig, ist ein kleiner Hügel, den man Dronningshoi nennt" The Hotel Deckerkrug is marked (if you google it) between Schuby and the E45 motorway, almost on the railway, in Schuby close to Dannewerke and Schleswig town. So, if you accept that Lohheide is the same as Loheden you have your battle site. Viking1808 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You are too fast for me, haha I had just finished explaining my point and why i did what i did in Talk. Gidicats (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Should i re-do what i did or is the decision to keep the bias comment final?'Gidicats (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have brought this a week ago to ANI and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken this issue to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. Since you have already involved in the Sri Lanka related issues on defense.lk and Lies Agreed Upon, I need your involvement how to tackle this user who is so adamant to listen others and pushing his Original Research aggressively without heeding the Wikipedia guidelines.Sudar123 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Saddhiyama
first a big thank you.
You seem to have put knowledgable sources on here. I will take a look at some of them if I may and if in doubt about anything will get back.
But please feel free to contact me at your own discretion.
P.s.: Maybe one should also have a look at society/ caste structure? but more of that to be seen I hope.
Thank you.
J. Jaman
Ah ok. I was not aware of that, sorry.
Tack för din hjälp :)
I don't see what the problem is, if you have any faults with regards to my editing then message me on specific issues, abusing your power as a mod is hardly the way forward for diplomacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.139.119 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
What made you delete state atheism information it was all refernced and resourced and all specific to the topic in hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.98.248 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I moved the source to the subject, it should be good, please help. the information is good. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Saddhiyama, I wrote an article on Advertising ‘Sheltered Outdoor Advertising’ , as I thought, and still think, that it would contribute to Wikipedia and I see the picture, which I uploaded, as a good example for the article. There is no intention to advertise, so I would be happy to change whatever I can.. But just today I finally finished struggling with Wiki regarding the copyrights for this photo and got it finally uploaded again with the copyrights sorted out… I’m becoming a bit desperate.. Would you please be kind to tell me what should I change in the photo so that it fits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Saddhiyama, I would have been more than happy to correct the bold letters. Again, it is not in my intention to advertise the company and bold letter were simply my oversight. I always had the impression that Wikipedia is dealt in a rather Democratic way, where I can upload a picture of my choice and not be dismissed with just ‘pick one of these’. I understand that, in your opinion, there are better examples, but would you please be kind to allow my opinion and taste to be expressed, especially if I do all in my efforts not to violate Wiki rules. I would kindle ask you to let me know what changes yhould I make in order for you to restore my photo. Best regards Tina Pratt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 07:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Saddhiyama, As I did not receive an answer from you for almost 3 weeks, I took the liberty of uploading my photo again, with all official names excluded (company, name of the festival..) I hope you will understand and respect my opinion that photo is a perfect example for the text. I will centennially gladly correct whatever needs to be corrected in order for the photo not to break any of the Wiki rules. With kind regards Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Pleeeease an answerrrr.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have created a sub section here on "UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure"; Please review.Sudar123 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Saddhiyama.
Thank you for responding. I wasn't logged in from this shared home computer, but I am now. (Same IP address.)
I believe that a mistake was made, and is continuing to be made. I would ask, what would the appropriate link be for Aleister Crowley? The truth is, one is linking an on-line encyclopedia to a more objective, more thorough encyclopedia -- when the subject is the man, A.C., at least. Similarly, the Wikipedia often references, quotes or incorporates whole paragraphs and sections from other specialized encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, the Catholic,or the Judaica.
I hope we can agree that the subject of the person Aleister Crowley will be of interest to users of Wikipedia, and that it would be a shame to leave his name un-linked. I think the question between us is whether the internal Wikipedia link best serves the users, or whether the external link is more accurate. The question is one of neutral, or neutral-ish, POV. Some subjects inspire strong passions and are difficult to be neutral about. Climate change and "creationism" are two examples where "teach the controversy" is inadequate . . .
Well. I was remembering some earlier incarnation of Wikipedia's A.C. article. Without reading the Talk page, but having just re-read the current article, I am glad to change my position and advocate linking A.C.'s name to Wikipedia's own A.C. article. I hope you don't mind if I go back and do so, at least for R.A.W.
Thank you for helping me come to this conclusion.
<{:)}> BaalShemRa (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This is Chipperdude15. The US and Saudi Arabia did provide naval support for Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. That is why I put the US and Saudi Arabia in the infobox of the article Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. For proof, please read Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971. Thanks. (talk) 11:07, September 14 2013
Apologies for restoring your deletion . Brain not in gear and I saw it as Book not Talk:Book. Regards Velella Velella Talk 14:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.