User talk:Relata refero
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Most recent activity:מסמך נקדי,Papa II,Kulwant Roy.
Archives |
| 1,2,3,4 |
You have just reverted my edits on RSS. I had removed the POV and un referenced claims to make the article more balanced. Can you specify your reasons on the discussion page. Let us work together to make this article more informative and less POV.Sindhian (talk)03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a several references to Hekmatyar, who became notorious in the 1970s for thisDear Relata refero, can you tell us more about the references toGulbuddin Hekmatyar and attacks on women, i.e. where you found them? Is it from a subscription database, or available to the general public? sincerelyBoogaLouie (talk)22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still GA reviewing this article? This article has been placed on hold for almost a month.miranda17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Relata, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentiallystupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since your objection to the article was primarily based on issues with the history section, I hoped you might be able to take a look atmy working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking the other editors who opposed partially based on the history section to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page.Karanacs (talk)15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relata refero, this kind of commentary is not helpful.[1] If you believe that theMuhammad al-Durrah article is in poor shape, then please edit it into better shape, or make constructive suggestions on the talkpage. But just complaining about "conspiracy theorists" is not going to help improve the article. Also, this comment was personally targeted at another editor,[2] and again has nothing to do with the actual editing of the article. Please try to adopt a more constructive andcivil tone at the talkpage. I am not saying stay away, but I am saying that I think you can be much more effective, if you actually make specific suggestions, such as "This needs to be removed" or "This isn't a reliable source" or "I think this section needs to be expanded". Or even better, just go ahead andedit the article. As long as you stick to theConditions for editing, you are welcome to make direct changes. --Elonka16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've witnessed quite a lot at wikipedia, but i think the following passage at the RSS article would qualify for the Wikipedia NPOV Awards; "RSS objects to the fact that Communist parties like CPI(M) and other minority political fronts are controlled by other countries and are therefore inherently subversive and treacherous." :) --Soman (talk)08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear sock, you've been found out once again:this time,Tripping Nambiar (talk ·contribs) is acting the part of Sherlock.dab(𒁳)07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Award this account a barnstar too while your at it.Trips (talk)07:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use all three accounts to force an edit or point of view.Trips (talk)06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onA Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. If you continue,you may beblocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. If necessary, pursuedispute resolution.WLU (talk)21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
One more revert to Dissent and you'll be reported for athree revert violation and I'm sure you are aware that that is ablockable offense. Several contributors have reverted your changes, and you are theonly editor who is in danger of breaking the 3RR, suggesting that there is noconsensus for your changes. Please discuss on the talk page.WLU (talk)01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)How does the article violateWP:LEAD? Where was it "extensively criticised"? Please make your case on the talk page - your cryptic edit summaries are not helpful.Guettarda (talk)22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi. have a look at the CPI(M) article. Hkelkar seems to have a new fan, who is readding the Hkelkar edits of jan 08. --Soman (talk)18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of.Wizardman18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. Most of the editors that participated in the recent polls were invited to participate in the most recent, but as far as I can see you were not. Your opinion should still be heard. The editor who opened the new poll said this to the other participants. "This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk)". RegardsWotapalaver (talk)13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your compliments. I expressed my opinion on the matter elsewhere and I won't waste time to rewrite it here. The wildest thing here is that I did not even back Kuban over whose revert war Folantin got his block but he was pissed of so much that he switched the direction and unleashed an attack on me of the intensity I have not seen for a long time and it rages still.[4][5]
The record of my only past interaction with Folantin can be foundhere. Please read this thread and the thread that follows and make up your own mind.
I am not inclined to pursue anything with Folantin at this point since he seems too off-rails now to pursue any reasonable discussion. I still do not know what is Moreschi's problem after this since he chose not to respond, back himself up or apologize. They threaten an ArbCom. I wish them luck in that. Thank you again and sorry for your being pulled into this. I usually ignore such obvious nonsense but Folantin's campaign was so massive that he managed to somewhat pierce my thick skin.If you'd rather not comment, feel free to do so. --Irpen16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Moreschi's assumptions and opinions interest me very little. Firstly, after hiscowardly talking nonsense behind my back at the secret forum and refusal to either apologize on stand up to it like a man, I have very little regard to this person (you may disagree with my feeling very firmly about that but it is very difficult to judge this from outside not being the one insulted so deeply.) Additionally, since he does not edit anywhere near I edit (I never met him in article's space, not sure what he does) and he is notthat active in crucial wiki-political matters to concern me either, I frankly do not care much. If he wants to make peace for his own reasons or because he feels awkward for what he said, the ball is in his court.
As for Folantin, this is a different story. I had exactly one interaction with him previously, and it was in the History of Russia FAR. I think it was a reasonable discussion. After that I noticed him at Moreschi's talk (that I watch listed probably because of Moreschi's run for ArbCom) making outright insulting remarks about Miyokan. What bothered me was that he did not just accuse Miyokan in POV-pushing. I have no doubt that Miyokan is a stronly pro-Russian editor with biases that are clear from his edits. What I found unacceptable was that Folantin baselessly accused Miyokan in xenophobia. You may have noticed a lot of recent bru-ha-ha about editors accusing other editors in racism over a White Pride thing. Personally, I share the view that White Pride stuff is racist and should be kept off wikipedia. But if you followed the discussions, you saw how strongly this community feels about casting the accusations of hate views, even if such accusations are justified. Nationalist or not, Miyokan never made any edits that would allow to accuse him of being a xenophobe. And when I saw this conversation behind his back when Folantin throws this stuff on him and Moreschi not reprimanding him, I said right there that this is not an appropriate conversation.
Now, there is this new incident which was initially simply about edit-warring.Folantin edit warred with Kuban kazak and the admin who handled the conflict chose to block them both over 3RR. I said it on record that there were better ways to handle this than blocks since both editors discussed at the talk rather than rabidly reverting each other. So, protection and warning to editors to take it to talk would have been the best action. But, as I also said, both tripped a 3RR wire and blocking of them both was clearly within policy. I also said that even ublocking Folantin but not unblocking Kuban was within the discretion of the admin who made these choices. Anyway,here is what I said. Compare it to Folantin's response as well as the rest of the thread, as well as his undeterred campaign continued to the multitude of other pages. I really don't understand these calls that say that we "both" should do this and not do that. I was neither involved nor supported his opponent. --Irpen18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reading all of this, and the discussions lying behind them, and looking around at the history, I admit to groaning a bit more. I'm not posting this at WP:DRAMA (though I might link it), but I'd say its worthwhile to just put it down anyway.
Here's the problem:
To the content first, since unfortunately I prefer discussions about dead tyrants to living editors: That there was a bit of UNDUEing is almost certainly correct- Ivan IV is AFAIK closely associated in most texts with the oprichnina (didn't he sulk somewhere till he received "requests" to form it?). The "clergy's morals" bit, well, I see Folantin's point. However, it is a matter of record that Ivan did in fact curtail the judicial powers of monasteries, as well as their material possessions - which were much grumbled-about at the time. There are parallels with the attitude of that other bloodthirsty "reformer", (and Ivan's near-contemporary) Henry VIII. When one thinks about how impossible it would be to summarise H8's attitude to the church in one sentence, one sees the source of the problem. Of course, the additional complication is that official Soviet/Russian history - and mainstream small-m marxist historians in the rest of the world - would see a lot of his policies aszakonomernyi in the case of the former, and as driven by underlying economo-historical forces in the case of the latter, where another set of historians would strongly disagree.
About Soloviev etc., I think I agree with Folantin that he should be avoided as far as possible. I would imagine that Irpen agrees as well, actually: I see his argument as more nuanced than merely saying that 19th C historians are acceptable, but that in some cases we can quote them cautiously, as we would primary sources perWP:PSTS. I'd also say I. is right in that overstating Mikoyan's POV-pushing as xenophobia is dangerous; if someone complained about it to me, Folantin, I'd have been pissed as hell too, but I'd have avoided the argument if poss., and tried to imagine the complainant was doing it to defuse the situation. (Perhaps better done off-wiki, but I don't hold with that in general.) Conversely, there are a bunch of people from various EE countries that'd love to be nasty all over "other countries'" WP articles, but that in itself doesn't mean they're xenophobes; national supremacism is milder than that.
Chechnya is tougher. I would probably have gone with being very surprised that it was not mentioned. However, it is certainly true that people writing from within a culture tend to have different perspectives on the level of due weight about these things, because of the greater variety of information to which they are exposed. In this case I would ask for some form of careful studying of other brief sketches of post-Soviet Russian history: what weightage do they provide? (I'd suggest to anyone interested that they look at the manner in which User:Fowler&fowler handles these problems.) Alternatively, the method I usually use is to ask for references that actually themselves discuss the weight of issue X. The very centrality or marginality of Chechnya in discourse about Russia will have been discussed in RSes.
About FAs, I am afraid I have come around to Folantin's views that on larger subjects they are written by "enthusiasts" and inevitably have problems. FAs on more "targeted" subjects, such as most of Cla68's, are not subject to this problem. (Nor iscrushing by elephant, which remains my favourite.)
About the latest case, I really do think that Folantin over-reacted. F, if you read Irpen's original contribution to the discussion when you're cooler, you'll hopefully see what I mean. (You would probably have not reacted the way you did if you knew Irpen's history with the blocking admin at the beginning either, which I'd judge was the real reason he commented.) OTOH, Irpen, this is a classic case where perhaps you needn't have commented, as, whatever you said, Folantin wouldn't have been able to assume good faith given s/he already believes that you tend to provide material comfort to POV-pushers - something I know would offend you, as it is behaviour that you and I have discussed in the past, and that we have agreed that lies at the root of flareups in ethnic hotspots on WP.
I'm not going to claim that its all personalities and you two (and CM) are unlikely to disagree about actual content about several things. (I think I can put my finger on why, incidentally - and its nothing to do with ethnicities - but that's a story for another day. I personally would split the difference on those issues, if it helps.) What is needed is for both of you to either assume good faith, or to accept someone else's judgment that you're both pretty decent editors who should just be studiously careful around each other. Assuming the worst of faith about each of you for a moment (not that I think any of what I am about to say is based on correct premises, but it might help): Irpen, there are many people more powerful and several times more likely to badmouth you randomly than Folantin or CM; Folantin, there are many worse enablers of POV-pushers than Irpen.
Finally, CM, if you're reading this: open an ArbCom if you wish, but one focused on "pro-Russian" editors alone would be ridiculous. I have been dragged into EE issues perhaps five times from various noticeboards (aside from the one article where, insh'allah, I will outlast the wild-eyed POV-pushers if I have to live to be a hundred and log on from my deathbed) and if my personal, uninvolved opinion is worth anything, its not a problem limited to one lot. (The central created narratives of the 21st century are those of historical victimhood, after all.) --Relata refero (disp.)20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly prepared to bury the hatchet with Irpen. I can't promise never to disagree with him again intellectually, but I am quite happy to take this off the personal level. Let's wipe the slate clean as far as mutual accusations of bad faith go. One of the keys to solving the problems which have led us here today is to remove the "bad apple" editors more efficiently. I note that user "Log in Log out", who was insistently calling for my head, has now been banned as a sock puppet of the notoriousUser:M.V.E.i.. So some good has come of this. I also note that Irpen removed said user's anti-Ukrainian rant as "trolling"[9]. All credit it to him for that. And I've just remembered one occasion when Irpen and I (and Moreschi) were in perfect agreement[10] ;). --Folantin. (talk)07:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have my gratitude, Folantin. I'm sure that Irpen feels the same way about the future. --Relata refero (disp.)19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same admin who blocked me for 3RR has just done the same to Dbachmann[11] (48 hours!). --Folantin (talk)16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Relata refero,
You gave me some advise (which didn't really apply at the time) back here[12], specifically you said "Wikipedia welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference." I replied pointing out that an extremly small number of the links to the site I run were put there by me, in fact most were put there by well known wikipedia editors and were entirely noncontrovertial for over 2 years.
Anyway, it's now been suggested that I go and discuss and then reinstate the links to my site that were mass deleted in a bit of vandalism by one user. This is going to take me significant time (based on the discussion, including points you raised, they should never have been deleted), but more significantly... this will mean I now AM the one adding the links. Exactly what you recommended against. What do you think about this? Is this OK? Do they really need to be addressed edit by edit? Time has lapsed while I tried to deal with this, so revert or roll back isn't an option. The discussion I've been having with another admin about it is here:[13]
Just really after your thoughts before doing anything as you made a lot of sense before.
Oboler (talk)10:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I very much appreciate them. Second of all, I'm wondering if you might be able to expand, in the interests of my own edification, on your "one or two minor quibbles". If you'd rather never discuss anything related to the Allegations of Apartheid article again, of course, that is also very understandable.Sarcasticidealist (talk)22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[14]Dance With The Devil (talk)06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to explain to me why I will be blocked, please explain why you have consistently removed anything I have edited into the Nehru page. Nehu was not a classical liberal, and his poor economic policy was not properly accounted to due to the lack of comparability and metrics. As a relatively good English student, I also fail to see the bad grammar. Where is this edit explanation I am prompted for each time you revert me.Trips (talk)06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also explain on what grounds were my edits to history of Hinduism worthy of being reverted.Trips (talk)07:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked foredit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Thirusivaperur (talk)07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/facepalm. --Relata refero (disp.)17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Relata - I came acrossthis fromPaul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussedhere. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checkedThe 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again.PRtalk13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were involved in this dispute (and I've cited your words in connection with it), you may be interested in seeingWikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --ChrisO (talk)06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Relato refero. I just happened to see some of your edits to article:Zakir Naik (after having unknowingly deleted/edited some of them myself). Some of the points raised (like the usage of honorifics, Arabic etc. for example) seem viable to me, and I feel they do need some consideration.'Abd el 'Azeez (talk)09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Relata, are you sure about the Hindu chauvinist label? TheBJP, which is a prominent part of the Sangh Parivar, has governed India (the world's most populous democracy and all that) several times, most recently from 1998 to 2004 or thereabouts; and while the BJP is certainly nationalist, and perhaps accurately described as "Hindu fundamentalist", I am not entirely comfortable with the "chauvinist" label from an NPOV point of view. For example, I very much doubt that this would be the average characterisation of the Sangh Parivar within the Indian media, which is of some relevance here, given that WP:EN is also the Indian WP. Any thoughts?Jayen46614:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:
Cheers,Jayen46614:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindu nationalist" is also OK; I think that we can go with the various parallel descriptions in the lead: "It has been variously described by academics as Hindu nationalist, Hindu fundamentalist and Hindu chauvinist", for example. --Relata refero (disp.)05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this might be of interest to you. Yes, it could use some rewriting, but all the content I think is needed is there, maybe too much. Maybe some balance from somebody who knows a bit about econ is needed.Smallbones (talk)16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, reading the talk-page on NSS, I see that you back in February suggested that the article had too few reliable academic sources, and too much dependence on financial journalism. To me that seems to be a correct observation. You also wrote that you were going to rewrite the article "shortly",..but it doesn´t look as if you got around to that? The article is in a rather poor state, would you like to make a second attempt? I hope the urge of certain admins to block anybody who touches it is gone, and that we can "lure" some more regular editors from the Business and Economics sections to the page. Regards,Huldra (talk)23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relata refero, nothing has been pointed out on FRINGE that is actionable or a violation of NPOV policy. Discussion has taken place. The majority of editors (7 at last count) stated this was not an issue with FRINGE. Consensus was achieved that this is not FRINGE. His argument was to remove the entire economics section, which would clearly violate NPOV on the other side. I only left the tag due to my NPOV objections to the suggestions. At this time, there is no specific NPOV policy issue and no action to take. If you have an issue, please state the specific issue that is in violation of NPOV policy and we can work through it (which doesn't need the tag mind you... it states it as a last resort on the page). The article has been heavily reviewed by many experienced editors (several from outside the country). I find that the issues brought up are mainly due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy or a lack of understanding of the research. Although I don't see the topic or the area as fringe, let me state that FRINGE (see Parity of sources) nor WP:V require peer-review material (although much of this was published at the universities for peer-review).Morphh(talk)20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am seriously thinking about trimming the controversies section in the aforementioned article. I invite you join the discussion.--GRRRRRRR................ (talk)16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need some serious help at the Ramakrishna article. Two editors have decided that the scholarship of the last 40 years should be rejected in favor of one hundred year-old sources that the Ramakrishna religious organization finds more amenable. Please see my contributions. —goetheanॐ16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Relata refero, It has been over a week since you had replied on theMangalore FAC. It may be possible you may have lost track of your replies on FAc's. That's why, I thought I should inform you. Thanks,Kensplanet (talk)04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply outrageous. Your repeated, unilateral removing of the neutrality tag while rejecting any attempt at discussion or consensus is unacceptable. Moderation on this article has already been opened; I strongly suggest you participate.Freedom Fan (talk)19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bajrang Dal is not on any reputable list of terrorist groups. In yourDNA link the only time terror came up was in the phrase "Islamic terror". In yourother source, the word "terrorism" is not mentioned. Your edit colors the Bajrang Dal with a hue that doesn't fit them. Militant, regressive, kook, fundamentalist are all reliably documented descriptions of the BD, but terrorist is not. Oh and thank you for the help on categories, I will get that sorted out soon.Pectoretalk02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were correcthttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/niall-ferguson-home-truths-about-famine-war-and-genocide-482314.html He did say this. I did not find the article when I searched the first time. I had thought that Niall Ferguson was too sophisticated to use alliterative insults to people.
I think that you made a good edit to the article. I edited only the Hari section as it was the only one that I knew much about.
Regards.Epa101 (talk)17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi my name is BountyHunter and I am the mediator which has taken on a case concerning you I wondered if you could explain to me what is going on regarding the articleEurabia and I will try and sort it out without having to take this to the formal stage of mediation. Many thanksBountyHunter2008 (talk)11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RR, I noticed that you have been involved inEurabia. My comments have nothing to do with your edits, but just some general questions, if I may ask - are weblogs considered a RS under any circumstances(I would say ”no“, based onWikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F. Also do you think that even if blogs are OK, stuffs like gatesofvienna.blogspot.com and Jihadwatch.org etc.(which are abundantly used in that article as RS) may be considered RS as they could easily fall underWikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources? Thanks Zencv Lets discuss22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sawyour comment regarding the ongoing Piotrus ArbCom and that you were considering to offer your thoughts on the issues on which you have knowledge. Just in case you missed, I think you need to be aware of this thread at the evidence page that alleges our coordinated malice atHolodomor denial. You can find my response to this here.
A note to whoever follows my edits and reads this, I did not alert Relata refero about this ArbCom on or off-wiki and I have no idea who did. But I would thoroughly support the request from ["several sides" that RR shares his thoughts on these matters. --Irpen02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here[15]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA.NancyHeisetalk23:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Koko1.jpg is now available onWikimedia Commons asCommons:Image:Konkona Sen Sharma.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Konkona Sen Sharma.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk)21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is locatedhere. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page,Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page,Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Tznkai (talk)15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was reverted, properly, in my opinion. I think the policies areWP:NOTCENSORED andWP:UNDUE. Please discuss on thediscussion page if needed.Bearian (talk)17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
onhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035641.html, which is from today, sheldon adelson is still called a billionaire. "Global financial storms threaten empire of Jewish billionaire, philanthropist Adelson." it also says "LVS lost more than 80% of its market value in October alone, reducing Adelson's personal fortune from LVS to a billion dollars or less, again - on paper. (Which means, he hasn't locked in his loss by selling his shares at their present low market value.)" - i don't think any of this is good enough for us to state that he's no longer a billionaire, unless a source comes out and flat out makes that claim. "a billion or less on paper" really doesn't warrant removing "billionaire" in my opinion. this could change, of course, if a source makes the direct claim that he's not a billionaire. i'd have no problem then.Theserialcomma (talk)18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you missedall the fun.
Enjoy. Don't forget the popcorn. --barneca (talk)17:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on V. P. Singh, and your encouragement for my own work. I have a wiki ID, which has been dormant since some time.Italo.70.21.118.58 (talk)02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of Guido den Broeder's conduct and status as an editor has begun athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F
I've alerted you since you are on his "respected user" listWLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
RyanPostlethwaiteSeethe mess I've created orlet's have banter10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BJBot (talk)05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The debate to refer to Australian soccer to "football" or association football" from the agreed term football (soccer) has returned here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits Please give your thoughts—Precedingunsigned comment added by60.224.0.121 (talk)02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Nehru Birla House Cartier-Bresson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BJBot (talk)05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominatedHalutzim (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments atthe discussion page. Thank you.UltraMagnusspeak11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is a very interesting scan, thanks for uploading it.File:JusticeTenniel1857Punch.jpgDecora (talk)21:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure I ever replied to your comment atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive392, anyway, here's the diff you asked for[16] --Soman (talk)14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required byWikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available fromWikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as animage copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.J Milburn (talk)15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Fut.Perf.☼13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:JP SK rally.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Damiens.rf14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Gora Bhave.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Damiens.rf14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Gandhigora.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have createdin your upload log.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia'scriteria for speedy deletion,F4. If the image iscopyrighted andnon-free,the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC) perspeedy deletion criterionF7. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Damiens.rf14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Gora a.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have createdin your upload log.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia'scriteria for speedy deletion,F4. If the image iscopyrighted andnon-free,the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC) perspeedy deletion criterionF7. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Damiens.rf14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Skier Dude (talk)06:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --sarvajna (talk)07:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --sarvajna (talk)07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectWikipedia:DIVA. Since you had some involvement with theWikipedia:DIVA redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion if you have not already done so.Alakzi (talk)12:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:Gandhi and Jinnah disagree 1946 - Kulwant Roy.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used undernon-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go tothe file description page, and edit it to include anon-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk)08:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Relata refero. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fileFile:Satchidanandan.jpg has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andfiles for discussion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to thepage history of each individual file for details. Thanks,FastilyBot (talk)01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectGod Save The King-Emperor has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 6 § God Save The King-Emperor until a consensus is reached.estar8806 (talk)★23:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Relata refero
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the usernameВикидим, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I'veproposed an article that you started,Himal, for deletion because it meets one or more of ourdeletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top ofthe article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}If you object to the article's deletion, please remember toexplain why you think the article should be kept onthe article's talk page andimprove the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later byother means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Викидим}}. And remember to sign your reply with~~~~. Thanks!
(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Викидим (talk)18:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you remember back in 2008, you interacted withUser:Otolemur crassicaudatus. This is my new username.CometVolcano (talk)21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]